<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_07_14_1918232</id>
	<title>Expanding the Electricity Grid May Be a Mistake</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1247566320000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Perhaps T. Boone Pickens <a href="//slashdot.org/story/09/07/08/167212">was onto something</a>. <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/" rel="nofollow">Al</a> writes <i>"An article in Technology Review argues that plans to string new high-voltage lines across the US to bring wind power from the midsection of the country to the coasts, <a href="http://www.technologyreview.com/printer\_friendly\_article.aspx?id=22997&amp;channel=energy">could be an expensive mistake</a>. What's needed instead are improved local and regional electricity transmission, the development of an efficient and adaptable smart grid, and the demonstration of technology such as carbon capture and sequestration, which could prove a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than transmitting power from North Dakota to New York City."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Perhaps T. Boone Pickens was onto something .
Al writes " An article in Technology Review argues that plans to string new high-voltage lines across the US to bring wind power from the midsection of the country to the coasts , could be an expensive mistake .
What 's needed instead are improved local and regional electricity transmission , the development of an efficient and adaptable smart grid , and the demonstration of technology such as carbon capture and sequestration , which could prove a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than transmitting power from North Dakota to New York City .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Perhaps T. Boone Pickens was onto something.
Al writes "An article in Technology Review argues that plans to string new high-voltage lines across the US to bring wind power from the midsection of the country to the coasts, could be an expensive mistake.
What's needed instead are improved local and regional electricity transmission, the development of an efficient and adaptable smart grid, and the demonstration of technology such as carbon capture and sequestration, which could prove a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than transmitting power from North Dakota to New York City.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698087</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>gonzonista</author>
	<datestamp>1247575680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>HVDC lines are cheaper to build than HVAC lines.  They only need two lines for conductors and use smaller right of ways.  The problem with using HVDC is that it is very expensive to interconnect.  HVDC works best when you have a single source of generation nearby.  The interconnection costs make it not feasible for the majority of renewable energy projects.</p><p>Conservation works very well but is limited in scope.  When electric cars become more mainstream, their energy use will swamp any conservation efforts.  At some point, it is necessary to build new generation.  Whether it is renewable, nuclear or fossil fuel depends on the economics and regulations.  No single type of energy will meet our future energy needs.  It will take a combination of resources to have a reliable, low cost electrical system.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>HVDC lines are cheaper to build than HVAC lines .
They only need two lines for conductors and use smaller right of ways .
The problem with using HVDC is that it is very expensive to interconnect .
HVDC works best when you have a single source of generation nearby .
The interconnection costs make it not feasible for the majority of renewable energy projects.Conservation works very well but is limited in scope .
When electric cars become more mainstream , their energy use will swamp any conservation efforts .
At some point , it is necessary to build new generation .
Whether it is renewable , nuclear or fossil fuel depends on the economics and regulations .
No single type of energy will meet our future energy needs .
It will take a combination of resources to have a reliable , low cost electrical system .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HVDC lines are cheaper to build than HVAC lines.
They only need two lines for conductors and use smaller right of ways.
The problem with using HVDC is that it is very expensive to interconnect.
HVDC works best when you have a single source of generation nearby.
The interconnection costs make it not feasible for the majority of renewable energy projects.Conservation works very well but is limited in scope.
When electric cars become more mainstream, their energy use will swamp any conservation efforts.
At some point, it is necessary to build new generation.
Whether it is renewable, nuclear or fossil fuel depends on the economics and regulations.
No single type of energy will meet our future energy needs.
It will take a combination of resources to have a reliable, low cost electrical system.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697825</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>jackchance</author>
	<datestamp>1247573760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have the same concerns about wind energy.  There is <a href="http://www.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/Australia/WindProblems.html#Can\%20a\%20wind\%20farm\%20change\%20the\%20local\%20climate?" title="geocities.com">some evidence</a> [geocities.com] that it can effect local ecology.</p><p>Solar energy on the other hand, isn't used very efficiently.  In fact, in much of the world shade structures that converted solar energy to electricity would provide a double service: cool via shading while using unwanted radiative energy.</p><p>The only way that using solar could effect climate is if we significantly changed the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albedo" title="wikipedia.org"> albedo</a> [wikipedia.org] by placing dark solar panels in a place that was very reflective.  However, other than the polar ice caps most of the earth's surface absorbs the solar energy, so we really would not affect climate by "taking out" the solar energy.  </p><p>I think we should actually launch solar concentrators into orbit.  Basically huge inflatable lenses that float in space and beam concentrated solar power down to heat some <a href="http://www.sandia.gov/Renewable\_Energy/solarthermal/NSTTF/salt.htm" title="sandia.gov">salt to drive a turbine</a> [sandia.gov].  We'd just have to make sure that planes didn't fly through the beam.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have the same concerns about wind energy .
There is some evidence [ geocities.com ] that it can effect local ecology.Solar energy on the other hand , is n't used very efficiently .
In fact , in much of the world shade structures that converted solar energy to electricity would provide a double service : cool via shading while using unwanted radiative energy.The only way that using solar could effect climate is if we significantly changed the albedo [ wikipedia.org ] by placing dark solar panels in a place that was very reflective .
However , other than the polar ice caps most of the earth 's surface absorbs the solar energy , so we really would not affect climate by " taking out " the solar energy .
I think we should actually launch solar concentrators into orbit .
Basically huge inflatable lenses that float in space and beam concentrated solar power down to heat some salt to drive a turbine [ sandia.gov ] .
We 'd just have to make sure that planes did n't fly through the beam .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have the same concerns about wind energy.
There is some evidence [geocities.com] that it can effect local ecology.Solar energy on the other hand, isn't used very efficiently.
In fact, in much of the world shade structures that converted solar energy to electricity would provide a double service: cool via shading while using unwanted radiative energy.The only way that using solar could effect climate is if we significantly changed the  albedo [wikipedia.org] by placing dark solar panels in a place that was very reflective.
However, other than the polar ice caps most of the earth's surface absorbs the solar energy, so we really would not affect climate by "taking out" the solar energy.
I think we should actually launch solar concentrators into orbit.
Basically huge inflatable lenses that float in space and beam concentrated solar power down to heat some salt to drive a turbine [sandia.gov].
We'd just have to make sure that planes didn't fly through the beam.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1247574780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Has anyone considered the meteorological effects of removing all that energy from the atmosphere?</p></div><p>Yes, and it's insignificant.</p><p><a href="http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/tcfaq/D7.html" title="noaa.gov">According to the NOAA</a> [noaa.gov], an average hurricane releases roughly 14 Terawatt-hours of energy per day.  <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/electricity.html" title="doe.gov">According to the EIA</a> [doe.gov], annual global electrical production comes to about 20 Terawatt-hours.</p><p>To summarize, <b>one single hurricane</b> can power <b>the entire world</b> (with room to grow) for <b>an entire year</b> if captured for <b>two days</b>.</p><p>Now consider how many hurricanes and typhoons there are in a year, how long they each last, and do the math.  And don't forget about lesser weather phenomenon like thunderstorms (An average thunderstorm releases about 10 gigawatt-hours) and wind in general, which also release a non-trivial amount of energy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Has anyone considered the meteorological effects of removing all that energy from the atmosphere ? Yes , and it 's insignificant.According to the NOAA [ noaa.gov ] , an average hurricane releases roughly 14 Terawatt-hours of energy per day .
According to the EIA [ doe.gov ] , annual global electrical production comes to about 20 Terawatt-hours.To summarize , one single hurricane can power the entire world ( with room to grow ) for an entire year if captured for two days.Now consider how many hurricanes and typhoons there are in a year , how long they each last , and do the math .
And do n't forget about lesser weather phenomenon like thunderstorms ( An average thunderstorm releases about 10 gigawatt-hours ) and wind in general , which also release a non-trivial amount of energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Has anyone considered the meteorological effects of removing all that energy from the atmosphere?Yes, and it's insignificant.According to the NOAA [noaa.gov], an average hurricane releases roughly 14 Terawatt-hours of energy per day.
According to the EIA [doe.gov], annual global electrical production comes to about 20 Terawatt-hours.To summarize, one single hurricane can power the entire world (with room to grow) for an entire year if captured for two days.Now consider how many hurricanes and typhoons there are in a year, how long they each last, and do the math.
And don't forget about lesser weather phenomenon like thunderstorms (An average thunderstorm releases about 10 gigawatt-hours) and wind in general, which also release a non-trivial amount of energy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28709535</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247657940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It's ironic that the people who could ultimately end up wrecking the earth are the "greens" and the"save the earth" types who'll do anything they can to prevent nuclear power.</i></p><p>Isn't it ironic that those who want nuclear power are "<a href="http://www.cato.org/pub\_display.php?pub\_id=8792" title="cato.org">Hooked on Subsidies</a> [cato.org]"?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ironic that the people who could ultimately end up wrecking the earth are the " greens " and the " save the earth " types who 'll do anything they can to prevent nuclear power.Is n't it ironic that those who want nuclear power are " Hooked on Subsidies [ cato.org ] " ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ironic that the people who could ultimately end up wrecking the earth are the "greens" and the"save the earth" types who'll do anything they can to prevent nuclear power.Isn't it ironic that those who want nuclear power are "Hooked on Subsidies [cato.org]"?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699137</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703901</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>MrKaos</author>
	<datestamp>1247675220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Well, there is one extremely low carbon footprint technology that we know works and scales well.</p></div></blockquote><p>
Unfortunately due to mismanagement and the characteristics of the Nuclear industry as a whole, release of radioactive isotopes into the environment is unavoidable. Whilst, generally, external exposure to radioactive isotopes may be harmless the process of 'Bioconcentration' (outlined in <a href="http://books.google.com.au/books?id=cFHEkzFJxQUC&amp;pg=PA169&amp;lpg=PA169&amp;dq=radioactive+isotope+bioconcentration+wiki&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=wdizvlUK\_-&amp;sig=MUlFgIyBSQdRX7NBUwrtZVrIXs4&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=895dSt\_1MofiswPb-IGpCg&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=1" title="google.com.au">Principles of Ecotoxicology</a> [google.com.au]) allows inevitable ingestion of radioactive isotopes via the food chain where the radioactive element becomes a potent source of cancer, depending on the nutrient the isotope analogues, in the body. For example, when ingested Pu-239 analogues iron and is a potent trigger for Leukemia.</p><p>
Much the same way our generation has to deal with a carbon dioxide externality in the form of carbon tax, future generations will have to deal with a radioactive isotope externality proportional to the amount of radioactive isotopes the Nuclear Industry releases. Unless, of course, practices within the nuclear industry are improved.</p><blockquote><div><p>Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the "renewables" that we've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.....</p></div></blockquote><p>
Your argument presumes that it is a polarised debate, pro vs anti but there is a pragmatic point of view as well that should be framed as 'Responsible Nuclear Advocacy'. The proposition of 'a lower standard of living' implies a Not In My Generation means to dealing with the, very real, issues the Nuclear Industry has. Acknowledging those and starting with a geologically sound spent fuel containment facility (which Yucca Mountain is not) is the first step to moving this industry forward.</p><p>
Whilst I think that development of Nuclear Power is necessary to deal with pu-239 and u-238 (yes I am talking about an IFR style reactor - but let's not go into that now), realistically it will take 50 years of infrastructure planning to implement a properly functioning industry. This is a ideal opportunity to develop and standardise the Nuclear industry for the next several hundred years with designs that take into account all of the engineered redundancy and safety facilities the Nuclear Industry recommended for itself some 25 years ago. Before you mention the AP-1000, this reactor fails even the most basic test of ratio of containment volume to thermal power (actually below that of today's PWRs) <strong>increasing</strong> the risk of containment over-pressurization and failure in event of a severe accident.</p><p>
Even doubling alternative energy research budgets would take 1/7th of the nuclear research budget, so there is serious scope for shortening the wait for the 'alternatives'. They are quite underdeveloped technology (solar, wind, geothermal, wave) so wouldn't it be wise to increase the funding to develop them and not have all our eggs in one basket? They have shorter development times between generations than nuclear and don't need artificial insurance constructs like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price-Anderson\_Nuclear\_Industries\_Indemnity\_Act" title="wikipedia.org">Price-Anderson act</a> [wikipedia.org] to make them insurable. </p><p>
If we are going to have a Nuclear Industry V2.0 why not develop one that is based on solid engineering principals instead of compromised to be affordable to capitalise. In the meantime if we invest heavily in undeveloped, low externality, energy solutions like solar, wind, geo-thermal and micro-generation there will be enough energy *available* to carry out such an infrastructure project properly. America, for one, is rich in these 'alternative' resources and would be foolish not to utilize them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , there is one extremely low carbon footprint technology that we know works and scales well .
Unfortunately due to mismanagement and the characteristics of the Nuclear industry as a whole , release of radioactive isotopes into the environment is unavoidable .
Whilst , generally , external exposure to radioactive isotopes may be harmless the process of 'Bioconcentration ' ( outlined in Principles of Ecotoxicology [ google.com.au ] ) allows inevitable ingestion of radioactive isotopes via the food chain where the radioactive element becomes a potent source of cancer , depending on the nutrient the isotope analogues , in the body .
For example , when ingested Pu-239 analogues iron and is a potent trigger for Leukemia .
Much the same way our generation has to deal with a carbon dioxide externality in the form of carbon tax , future generations will have to deal with a radioactive isotope externality proportional to the amount of radioactive isotopes the Nuclear Industry releases .
Unless , of course , practices within the nuclear industry are improved.Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the " renewables " that we 've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.... . Your argument presumes that it is a polarised debate , pro vs anti but there is a pragmatic point of view as well that should be framed as 'Responsible Nuclear Advocacy' .
The proposition of 'a lower standard of living ' implies a Not In My Generation means to dealing with the , very real , issues the Nuclear Industry has .
Acknowledging those and starting with a geologically sound spent fuel containment facility ( which Yucca Mountain is not ) is the first step to moving this industry forward .
Whilst I think that development of Nuclear Power is necessary to deal with pu-239 and u-238 ( yes I am talking about an IFR style reactor - but let 's not go into that now ) , realistically it will take 50 years of infrastructure planning to implement a properly functioning industry .
This is a ideal opportunity to develop and standardise the Nuclear industry for the next several hundred years with designs that take into account all of the engineered redundancy and safety facilities the Nuclear Industry recommended for itself some 25 years ago .
Before you mention the AP-1000 , this reactor fails even the most basic test of ratio of containment volume to thermal power ( actually below that of today 's PWRs ) increasing the risk of containment over-pressurization and failure in event of a severe accident .
Even doubling alternative energy research budgets would take 1/7th of the nuclear research budget , so there is serious scope for shortening the wait for the 'alternatives' .
They are quite underdeveloped technology ( solar , wind , geothermal , wave ) so would n't it be wise to increase the funding to develop them and not have all our eggs in one basket ?
They have shorter development times between generations than nuclear and do n't need artificial insurance constructs like the Price-Anderson act [ wikipedia.org ] to make them insurable .
If we are going to have a Nuclear Industry V2.0 why not develop one that is based on solid engineering principals instead of compromised to be affordable to capitalise .
In the meantime if we invest heavily in undeveloped , low externality , energy solutions like solar , wind , geo-thermal and micro-generation there will be enough energy * available * to carry out such an infrastructure project properly .
America , for one , is rich in these 'alternative ' resources and would be foolish not to utilize them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, there is one extremely low carbon footprint technology that we know works and scales well.
Unfortunately due to mismanagement and the characteristics of the Nuclear industry as a whole, release of radioactive isotopes into the environment is unavoidable.
Whilst, generally, external exposure to radioactive isotopes may be harmless the process of 'Bioconcentration' (outlined in Principles of Ecotoxicology [google.com.au]) allows inevitable ingestion of radioactive isotopes via the food chain where the radioactive element becomes a potent source of cancer, depending on the nutrient the isotope analogues, in the body.
For example, when ingested Pu-239 analogues iron and is a potent trigger for Leukemia.
Much the same way our generation has to deal with a carbon dioxide externality in the form of carbon tax, future generations will have to deal with a radioactive isotope externality proportional to the amount of radioactive isotopes the Nuclear Industry releases.
Unless, of course, practices within the nuclear industry are improved.Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the "renewables" that we've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.....
Your argument presumes that it is a polarised debate, pro vs anti but there is a pragmatic point of view as well that should be framed as 'Responsible Nuclear Advocacy'.
The proposition of 'a lower standard of living' implies a Not In My Generation means to dealing with the, very real, issues the Nuclear Industry has.
Acknowledging those and starting with a geologically sound spent fuel containment facility (which Yucca Mountain is not) is the first step to moving this industry forward.
Whilst I think that development of Nuclear Power is necessary to deal with pu-239 and u-238 (yes I am talking about an IFR style reactor - but let's not go into that now), realistically it will take 50 years of infrastructure planning to implement a properly functioning industry.
This is a ideal opportunity to develop and standardise the Nuclear industry for the next several hundred years with designs that take into account all of the engineered redundancy and safety facilities the Nuclear Industry recommended for itself some 25 years ago.
Before you mention the AP-1000, this reactor fails even the most basic test of ratio of containment volume to thermal power (actually below that of today's PWRs) increasing the risk of containment over-pressurization and failure in event of a severe accident.
Even doubling alternative energy research budgets would take 1/7th of the nuclear research budget, so there is serious scope for shortening the wait for the 'alternatives'.
They are quite underdeveloped technology (solar, wind, geothermal, wave) so wouldn't it be wise to increase the funding to develop them and not have all our eggs in one basket?
They have shorter development times between generations than nuclear and don't need artificial insurance constructs like the Price-Anderson act [wikipedia.org] to make them insurable.
If we are going to have a Nuclear Industry V2.0 why not develop one that is based on solid engineering principals instead of compromised to be affordable to capitalise.
In the meantime if we invest heavily in undeveloped, low externality, energy solutions like solar, wind, geo-thermal and micro-generation there will be enough energy *available* to carry out such an infrastructure project properly.
America, for one, is rich in these 'alternative' resources and would be foolish not to utilize them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700085</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247592480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but what about the butterfly effect?  Has anyone ever considered that?  Why it could cause calamity, disaster, another Hitler could be born.  Think of the Children!!!..........</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but what about the butterfly effect ?
Has anyone ever considered that ?
Why it could cause calamity , disaster , another Hitler could be born .
Think of the Children ! !
! ......... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but what about the butterfly effect?
Has anyone ever considered that?
Why it could cause calamity, disaster, another Hitler could be born.
Think of the Children!!
!..........</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700415</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>compro01</author>
	<datestamp>1247596080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Disregard me please.  I screwed up and dropped 3 orders of magnitude.  That should be 20,000 Terawatt-hours of annual energy use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Disregard me please .
I screwed up and dropped 3 orders of magnitude .
That should be 20,000 Terawatt-hours of annual energy use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Disregard me please.
I screwed up and dropped 3 orders of magnitude.
That should be 20,000 Terawatt-hours of annual energy use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700863</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>Sethumme</author>
	<datestamp>1247689860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Also the least future proof. Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase, barring some disaster that leaves this all a moot point anyway.</p></div><p>An apt description.  I apply the same logic to my personal finances.  My spending <i>will</i> outpace my income, so why bother pinching pennies when it's so much more convenient to blow my whole paycheck on the first shiny thing that catches my eye?</p><p>The same goes for health too.  No matter what you do, you <i>will</i> die at some point.  But you don't need vitamins or exercise when you're dead, so why bother with it now?  I'm not going to waste my time trying to make the most of what I have, I'll just wait until they develop a way to put my brain into an ageless robot.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Also the least future proof .
Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase , barring some disaster that leaves this all a moot point anyway.An apt description .
I apply the same logic to my personal finances .
My spending will outpace my income , so why bother pinching pennies when it 's so much more convenient to blow my whole paycheck on the first shiny thing that catches my eye ? The same goes for health too .
No matter what you do , you will die at some point .
But you do n't need vitamins or exercise when you 're dead , so why bother with it now ?
I 'm not going to waste my time trying to make the most of what I have , I 'll just wait until they develop a way to put my brain into an ageless robot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Also the least future proof.
Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase, barring some disaster that leaves this all a moot point anyway.An apt description.
I apply the same logic to my personal finances.
My spending will outpace my income, so why bother pinching pennies when it's so much more convenient to blow my whole paycheck on the first shiny thing that catches my eye?The same goes for health too.
No matter what you do, you will die at some point.
But you don't need vitamins or exercise when you're dead, so why bother with it now?
I'm not going to waste my time trying to make the most of what I have, I'll just wait until they develop a way to put my brain into an ageless robot.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700171</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There will \_always\_ be more people.</p></div><p>Hell, we can fix THAT problem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There will \ _always \ _ be more people.Hell , we can fix THAT problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will \_always\_ be more people.Hell, we can fix THAT problem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699787</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>dachshund</author>
	<datestamp>1247589660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i> Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the "renewables" that we've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.....</i> </p><p>I've met the opponents of nuclear energy, and they're not tree-huggers.  They're your neighbors.  They drive SUVs, have backyard cookouts, and they buy still buy mylar balloons even though so-and-so says the kill whales (the kids love them...  what can you do?).  In fact, they don't even care about the possible environmental impact of nuclear power plants --- just as long as they're <i>nowhere the hell nearby</i>.</p><p>Some people delude themselves into the idea we'd be building nuclear plants everywhere if it wasn't for those environmentalists (<a href="http://www.newsgab.com/forum/celebrity-news-gossip/41694-scooby-doo-creater-dies-81-a.html" title="newsgab.com">and their pesky dog!</a> [newsgab.com])  In real life, there's about a snowball's chance of nuclear plants being constructed near major population centers.  In part that's because the economics suck, but mostly it's because Joe and Jane sixpack don't want them there.</p><p>It may feel nice to shout hypocrisy at those evil environmentalists, but it's a mug's game.  So get it out of your system, go learn a bit about this great country we live in.  Then come back and maybe you can contribute something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the " renewables " that we 've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living..... I 've met the opponents of nuclear energy , and they 're not tree-huggers .
They 're your neighbors .
They drive SUVs , have backyard cookouts , and they buy still buy mylar balloons even though so-and-so says the kill whales ( the kids love them... what can you do ? ) .
In fact , they do n't even care about the possible environmental impact of nuclear power plants --- just as long as they 're nowhere the hell nearby.Some people delude themselves into the idea we 'd be building nuclear plants everywhere if it was n't for those environmentalists ( and their pesky dog !
[ newsgab.com ] ) In real life , there 's about a snowball 's chance of nuclear plants being constructed near major population centers .
In part that 's because the economics suck , but mostly it 's because Joe and Jane sixpack do n't want them there.It may feel nice to shout hypocrisy at those evil environmentalists , but it 's a mug 's game .
So get it out of your system , go learn a bit about this great country we live in .
Then come back and maybe you can contribute something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the "renewables" that we've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living..... I've met the opponents of nuclear energy, and they're not tree-huggers.
They're your neighbors.
They drive SUVs, have backyard cookouts, and they buy still buy mylar balloons even though so-and-so says the kill whales (the kids love them...  what can you do?).
In fact, they don't even care about the possible environmental impact of nuclear power plants --- just as long as they're nowhere the hell nearby.Some people delude themselves into the idea we'd be building nuclear plants everywhere if it wasn't for those environmentalists (and their pesky dog!
[newsgab.com])  In real life, there's about a snowball's chance of nuclear plants being constructed near major population centers.
In part that's because the economics suck, but mostly it's because Joe and Jane sixpack don't want them there.It may feel nice to shout hypocrisy at those evil environmentalists, but it's a mug's game.
So get it out of your system, go learn a bit about this great country we live in.
Then come back and maybe you can contribute something.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697719</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>jeffliott</author>
	<datestamp>1247573040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Solar is free in the sense that you describe. All the electricity it generates that is spent will eventually heat up some load somewhere, and unspent energy will just heat up the surface, just like if it were a tar covered roof. Nothing is lost, since the energy removed still enters the system in the same quantity, just somewhere else, hopefully nearby.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Solar is free in the sense that you describe .
All the electricity it generates that is spent will eventually heat up some load somewhere , and unspent energy will just heat up the surface , just like if it were a tar covered roof .
Nothing is lost , since the energy removed still enters the system in the same quantity , just somewhere else , hopefully nearby .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Solar is free in the sense that you describe.
All the electricity it generates that is spent will eventually heat up some load somewhere, and unspent energy will just heat up the surface, just like if it were a tar covered roof.
Nothing is lost, since the energy removed still enters the system in the same quantity, just somewhere else, hopefully nearby.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702329</id>
	<title>Re:Smart Grid Is a Dumb Idea</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1247666340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I get the point, but... "lights out at 10pm", really? What about heat, air conditioning, medical equipment, etc that use power and can be vital to living? That particular idea wouldn't go anywhere, but the rest... yeah, that's a scarily accurate picture of where this could go, sadly. Ten years ago I'd never have thought it possible in America.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I get the point , but... " lights out at 10pm " , really ?
What about heat , air conditioning , medical equipment , etc that use power and can be vital to living ?
That particular idea would n't go anywhere , but the rest... yeah , that 's a scarily accurate picture of where this could go , sadly .
Ten years ago I 'd never have thought it possible in America .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I get the point, but... "lights out at 10pm", really?
What about heat, air conditioning, medical equipment, etc that use power and can be vital to living?
That particular idea wouldn't go anywhere, but the rest... yeah, that's a scarily accurate picture of where this could go, sadly.
Ten years ago I'd never have thought it possible in America.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697417</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>BoomerSooner</author>
	<datestamp>1247571120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I read about it somewhere. Said it actually raised temps 2-3&#194;F while in operation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I read about it somewhere .
Said it actually raised temps 2-3   F while in operation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I read about it somewhere.
Said it actually raised temps 2-3ÂF while in operation.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699357</id>
	<title>Re:Changing technology</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247585880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>One technology people seam to be forgetting is solar tower. It's relatively low tech approach that uses no solar cells and as far as I understand can last a VERY long time. Additionally it has a neat property of buffering power thermally using molten salt for as long as 18 hours after sundown (I am using numbers from spanish prototype).</p><p>I have a strong suspicion that a mirror that operate in a wide spectrum if properly designed could last for a good long while without degradation to speak of (century? more?). Obviously sun tracking equipment will need to be maintained and a tower itself replaced as it will most likely start degrading from constant thermal deformations. However replacing a chunk of concrete every 30-40 years sounds much cheaper than an array of solar panels for the same duration. Salt tank at constant temperature of ~600C should be happy for a while as well. So we are left with a turbine as an only significant degrading element. As a bonus however, this type of solar energy can be coupled with any other form of thermal for emergencies and grid balancing. All facilities involved could buffer energy in salt tank and use same turbine for power generation. Additional bonus is that this facility is scalable. Not for home use, but a town could hammer one together. </p><p>So we have a flexible, scalable, low tech, durable power plant. Sounds like a good deal to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>One technology people seam to be forgetting is solar tower .
It 's relatively low tech approach that uses no solar cells and as far as I understand can last a VERY long time .
Additionally it has a neat property of buffering power thermally using molten salt for as long as 18 hours after sundown ( I am using numbers from spanish prototype ) .I have a strong suspicion that a mirror that operate in a wide spectrum if properly designed could last for a good long while without degradation to speak of ( century ?
more ? ) . Obviously sun tracking equipment will need to be maintained and a tower itself replaced as it will most likely start degrading from constant thermal deformations .
However replacing a chunk of concrete every 30-40 years sounds much cheaper than an array of solar panels for the same duration .
Salt tank at constant temperature of ~ 600C should be happy for a while as well .
So we are left with a turbine as an only significant degrading element .
As a bonus however , this type of solar energy can be coupled with any other form of thermal for emergencies and grid balancing .
All facilities involved could buffer energy in salt tank and use same turbine for power generation .
Additional bonus is that this facility is scalable .
Not for home use , but a town could hammer one together .
So we have a flexible , scalable , low tech , durable power plant .
Sounds like a good deal to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One technology people seam to be forgetting is solar tower.
It's relatively low tech approach that uses no solar cells and as far as I understand can last a VERY long time.
Additionally it has a neat property of buffering power thermally using molten salt for as long as 18 hours after sundown (I am using numbers from spanish prototype).I have a strong suspicion that a mirror that operate in a wide spectrum if properly designed could last for a good long while without degradation to speak of (century?
more?). Obviously sun tracking equipment will need to be maintained and a tower itself replaced as it will most likely start degrading from constant thermal deformations.
However replacing a chunk of concrete every 30-40 years sounds much cheaper than an array of solar panels for the same duration.
Salt tank at constant temperature of ~600C should be happy for a while as well.
So we are left with a turbine as an only significant degrading element.
As a bonus however, this type of solar energy can be coupled with any other form of thermal for emergencies and grid balancing.
All facilities involved could buffer energy in salt tank and use same turbine for power generation.
Additional bonus is that this facility is scalable.
Not for home use, but a town could hammer one together.
So we have a flexible, scalable, low tech, durable power plant.
Sounds like a good deal to me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704921</id>
	<title>No kidding</title>
	<author>sean.peters</author>
	<datestamp>1247680440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The idea that nationwide transmission of electricity is too expensive, therefore we need to do CCS... is laughably stupid. We don't even know HOW to do CCS - the only concepts so far have involved injecting CO2 back into underground rock formations. And no one has any idea how long CO2 injected in this fashion would STAY sequestered. And just CAPTURING C02 is really, really expensive. The only justification for this, as you say, is to give taxpayer dollars to the coal industry.</p><p>Maybe building super long-distance transmission isn't cost-effective - I don't know. But to say such transmission lines are too expensive, therefore - CCS - is beyond dumb. It's a non-sequitur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The idea that nationwide transmission of electricity is too expensive , therefore we need to do CCS... is laughably stupid .
We do n't even know HOW to do CCS - the only concepts so far have involved injecting CO2 back into underground rock formations .
And no one has any idea how long CO2 injected in this fashion would STAY sequestered .
And just CAPTURING C02 is really , really expensive .
The only justification for this , as you say , is to give taxpayer dollars to the coal industry.Maybe building super long-distance transmission is n't cost-effective - I do n't know .
But to say such transmission lines are too expensive , therefore - CCS - is beyond dumb .
It 's a non-sequitur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The idea that nationwide transmission of electricity is too expensive, therefore we need to do CCS... is laughably stupid.
We don't even know HOW to do CCS - the only concepts so far have involved injecting CO2 back into underground rock formations.
And no one has any idea how long CO2 injected in this fashion would STAY sequestered.
And just CAPTURING C02 is really, really expensive.
The only justification for this, as you say, is to give taxpayer dollars to the coal industry.Maybe building super long-distance transmission isn't cost-effective - I don't know.
But to say such transmission lines are too expensive, therefore - CCS - is beyond dumb.
It's a non-sequitur.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697729</id>
	<title>NIF would require this</title>
	<author>moon3</author>
	<datestamp>1247573160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Being overly optimistic (I know), but once the fusion (NIF or similar facility) research succeeds and the fusion energy is tamed we would actually need such a hight voltage grid in place. Of course it will probably not happen in our lifetimes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Being overly optimistic ( I know ) , but once the fusion ( NIF or similar facility ) research succeeds and the fusion energy is tamed we would actually need such a hight voltage grid in place .
Of course it will probably not happen in our lifetimes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being overly optimistic (I know), but once the fusion (NIF or similar facility) research succeeds and the fusion energy is tamed we would actually need such a hight voltage grid in place.
Of course it will probably not happen in our lifetimes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697349</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>polar red</author>
	<datestamp>1247570880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, like building 1 billion houses has no impact. or demolishing 10 billion trees.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , like building 1 billion houses has no impact .
or demolishing 10 billion trees .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, like building 1 billion houses has no impact.
or demolishing 10 billion trees.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697785</id>
	<title>Wireless transmission?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247573520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would it work?<br>Microwaves to send it wirelessly across the air?  To a floating blimp?  To space and back again?<br>LASER?</p><p>How efficient would it be?</p><p>If it could work well enough, it would be a much better idea than digging out miles of ground just to place some wires down.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would it work ? Microwaves to send it wirelessly across the air ?
To a floating blimp ?
To space and back again ? LASER ? How efficient would it be ? If it could work well enough , it would be a much better idea than digging out miles of ground just to place some wires down .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would it work?Microwaves to send it wirelessly across the air?
To a floating blimp?
To space and back again?LASER?How efficient would it be?If it could work well enough, it would be a much better idea than digging out miles of ground just to place some wires down.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700455</id>
	<title>Amazing amount of misinformation in the replies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247596620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>While I understand the jokes, so much information is contained in the article and replies.<br>A few:1) Nuclear is so expensive it will never be built anywhere but France and Japan. $20B for 2000MW in Georgia vs $60B for a national grid?? Can't find the article on the expense of nuclear - it's at work;<br>2) DC lines are viable solutions. A 1500MW DC line from Vancouver CANADA to SF Bay was proposed a few year ago for $3B. Seemed like a lot at the time but barely covers CAISO's overhead and won't even touch local LAP prices (read extortion by Goldman Sachs of urban areas);<br>3) The US has huge reserves of natural gas and the import of LNG by the oil companies has collapsed;<br>4) Renewable resources require transmission such as the $2B line LADWP is proposing to bring solar and geothermal energy to LA;<br>5) Huge amount of hype around Smart Grid. Putting solar and plug-in electric and hybrids (portable storage) will have an impact but can't replace baseload (17\% capacity factor vs 90\% CF);<br>6) Wind has a 33\% CF and is usually firm to 100\% with hydro power (no the dams shouldn't be torn down;<br>7) Solar thermal has huge possibilities but requires transmission. Deutsche Bank et al have proposed solar thermal in North Africa and DC lines to serve 15\% of Europe's electricity for $600B to be completed in about 6-8 years; etc etc</p><p>I'm going to have to write my book on renewable electricity - "Positive? Not!!"<br>Uncle Al</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>While I understand the jokes , so much information is contained in the article and replies.A few : 1 ) Nuclear is so expensive it will never be built anywhere but France and Japan .
$ 20B for 2000MW in Georgia vs $ 60B for a national grid ? ?
Ca n't find the article on the expense of nuclear - it 's at work ; 2 ) DC lines are viable solutions .
A 1500MW DC line from Vancouver CANADA to SF Bay was proposed a few year ago for $ 3B .
Seemed like a lot at the time but barely covers CAISO 's overhead and wo n't even touch local LAP prices ( read extortion by Goldman Sachs of urban areas ) ; 3 ) The US has huge reserves of natural gas and the import of LNG by the oil companies has collapsed ; 4 ) Renewable resources require transmission such as the $ 2B line LADWP is proposing to bring solar and geothermal energy to LA ; 5 ) Huge amount of hype around Smart Grid .
Putting solar and plug-in electric and hybrids ( portable storage ) will have an impact but ca n't replace baseload ( 17 \ % capacity factor vs 90 \ % CF ) ; 6 ) Wind has a 33 \ % CF and is usually firm to 100 \ % with hydro power ( no the dams should n't be torn down ; 7 ) Solar thermal has huge possibilities but requires transmission .
Deutsche Bank et al have proposed solar thermal in North Africa and DC lines to serve 15 \ % of Europe 's electricity for $ 600B to be completed in about 6-8 years ; etc etcI 'm going to have to write my book on renewable electricity - " Positive ?
Not ! ! " Uncle Al</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I understand the jokes, so much information is contained in the article and replies.A few:1) Nuclear is so expensive it will never be built anywhere but France and Japan.
$20B for 2000MW in Georgia vs $60B for a national grid??
Can't find the article on the expense of nuclear - it's at work;2) DC lines are viable solutions.
A 1500MW DC line from Vancouver CANADA to SF Bay was proposed a few year ago for $3B.
Seemed like a lot at the time but barely covers CAISO's overhead and won't even touch local LAP prices (read extortion by Goldman Sachs of urban areas);3) The US has huge reserves of natural gas and the import of LNG by the oil companies has collapsed;4) Renewable resources require transmission such as the $2B line LADWP is proposing to bring solar and geothermal energy to LA;5) Huge amount of hype around Smart Grid.
Putting solar and plug-in electric and hybrids (portable storage) will have an impact but can't replace baseload (17\% capacity factor vs 90\% CF);6) Wind has a 33\% CF and is usually firm to 100\% with hydro power (no the dams shouldn't be torn down;7) Solar thermal has huge possibilities but requires transmission.
Deutsche Bank et al have proposed solar thermal in North Africa and DC lines to serve 15\% of Europe's electricity for $600B to be completed in about 6-8 years; etc etcI'm going to have to write my book on renewable electricity - "Positive?
Not!!"Uncle Al</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185</id>
	<title>Yeah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247570040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, because we all know that every locale has magic electricity faeries just waiting to produce low-carbon-footprint electricity.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because we all know that every locale has magic electricity faeries just waiting to produce low-carbon-footprint electricity .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because we all know that every locale has magic electricity faeries just waiting to produce low-carbon-footprint electricity.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698999</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>p51d007</author>
	<datestamp>1247582940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nice to see someone was paying attention when they talked about standing wave ratio.
People just don't understand that you just can't run a cable from one end of the country to the
other without a problem.

73's

KB0GNK</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nice to see someone was paying attention when they talked about standing wave ratio .
People just do n't understand that you just ca n't run a cable from one end of the country to the other without a problem .
73 's KB0GNK</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nice to see someone was paying attention when they talked about standing wave ratio.
People just don't understand that you just can't run a cable from one end of the country to the
other without a problem.
73's

KB0GNK</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697515</id>
	<title>Nuclear!</title>
	<author>greg\_barton</author>
	<datestamp>1247571600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just about anything but <a href="http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">nuclear</a> [blogspot.com] is a mistake.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just about anything but nuclear [ blogspot.com ] is a mistake .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just about anything but nuclear [blogspot.com] is a mistake.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700147</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247593020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Someone call buffalo bill.  I hear he can lasso tornadoes..  Why not hurricanes?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone call buffalo bill .
I hear he can lasso tornadoes.. Why not hurricanes ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone call buffalo bill.
I hear he can lasso tornadoes..  Why not hurricanes?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697817</id>
	<title>Re:There's another advantage</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1247573700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Decentralized generation seems likely to offer more jobs at the local level, both for construction of smaller, more numerous generating facilities and for on-going staffing and maintenance.</i> </p><p>In other words, small, inefficient and wasteful.</p><p>You build your hydro plant on the Niagara River because you can generate massive amounts of power from facilities which will last more than 100 years - with maintaince and rehab on a 25 year cyle.</p><p>It's not a make-work project - it is a power project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Decentralized generation seems likely to offer more jobs at the local level , both for construction of smaller , more numerous generating facilities and for on-going staffing and maintenance .
In other words , small , inefficient and wasteful.You build your hydro plant on the Niagara River because you can generate massive amounts of power from facilities which will last more than 100 years - with maintaince and rehab on a 25 year cyle.It 's not a make-work project - it is a power project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Decentralized generation seems likely to offer more jobs at the local level, both for construction of smaller, more numerous generating facilities and for on-going staffing and maintenance.
In other words, small, inefficient and wasteful.You build your hydro plant on the Niagara River because you can generate massive amounts of power from facilities which will last more than 100 years - with maintaince and rehab on a 25 year cyle.It's not a make-work project - it is a power project.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700557</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>Jeremi</author>
	<datestamp>1247598000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>There will \_always\_ be more people.<br>There will \_always\_ be greater demand for resources</i></p><p>Given a finite amount of resources on earth, the above is clearly false.  As resources become more scarce, prices will rise, which will reduce demand.  And in the long run, there won't be any more people living on Earth than Earth can support, by definition.</p><p>The only question is how to deal with the problem.  Conservationists recommend.... conserving resources, so that they will last longer.  It's not a difficult position to understand.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will \ _always \ _ be more people.There will \ _always \ _ be greater demand for resourcesGiven a finite amount of resources on earth , the above is clearly false .
As resources become more scarce , prices will rise , which will reduce demand .
And in the long run , there wo n't be any more people living on Earth than Earth can support , by definition.The only question is how to deal with the problem .
Conservationists recommend.... conserving resources , so that they will last longer .
It 's not a difficult position to understand .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There will \_always\_ be more people.There will \_always\_ be greater demand for resourcesGiven a finite amount of resources on earth, the above is clearly false.
As resources become more scarce, prices will rise, which will reduce demand.
And in the long run, there won't be any more people living on Earth than Earth can support, by definition.The only question is how to deal with the problem.
Conservationists recommend.... conserving resources, so that they will last longer.
It's not a difficult position to understand.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698669</id>
	<title>Alternate explaination...</title>
	<author>fahrbot-bot</author>
	<datestamp>1247580000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>which could prove a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than transmitting power from North Dakota to New York City</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Or, according to this <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/14/science/earth/14grid.html?\_r=1" title="nytimes.com">NY Times article</a> [nytimes.com]:</p><blockquote><div><p>An influential coalition of East Coast governors and power companies fears that building wind and solar sites in the Midwest would cause their region to miss out on jobs and other economic benefits. The coalition is therefore trying to block a mandate for transcontinental lines.</p></div>
</blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>which could prove a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than transmitting power from North Dakota to New York City Or , according to this NY Times article [ nytimes.com ] : An influential coalition of East Coast governors and power companies fears that building wind and solar sites in the Midwest would cause their region to miss out on jobs and other economic benefits .
The coalition is therefore trying to block a mandate for transcontinental lines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>which could prove a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions than transmitting power from North Dakota to New York City

Or, according to this NY Times article [nytimes.com]:An influential coalition of East Coast governors and power companies fears that building wind and solar sites in the Midwest would cause their region to miss out on jobs and other economic benefits.
The coalition is therefore trying to block a mandate for transcontinental lines.

	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697917</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247574420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere, couldn't you end up with climate changes that could be even more devestating than the global warming you're trying to avoid?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Yes you could.  However, building the number of windmills required to satisfy all of our energy needs wouldn't make a noticeable dent in the climate AT ALL.  Just to give a sense of scale, consider the following: wind power is primarily the result of solar input.  At Earth distance sunlight delivers 1360 watts per (projected) square meter; that's about 10 megawatts per football field (or, if you prefer, soccer pitch.)  Over the lit surface of the Earth, that's an energy input of 173,000 terawatts.
<br> <br>The current energy consumption of mankind?  16.
<br> <br>Note that this is just solar input (of which some percentage goes into wind power).  This doesn't even touch on the potential of tapping into ocean tides, which is driven by gravitational forces.  And of course the supernova remnant fuel storage device known as nuclear fission.  Compared to the impact of releasing long-sequestered carbon from beneath the ground back into the atmosphere, stealing power from the wind is chicken feed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere , could n't you end up with climate changes that could be even more devestating than the global warming you 're trying to avoid ?
Yes you could .
However , building the number of windmills required to satisfy all of our energy needs would n't make a noticeable dent in the climate AT ALL .
Just to give a sense of scale , consider the following : wind power is primarily the result of solar input .
At Earth distance sunlight delivers 1360 watts per ( projected ) square meter ; that 's about 10 megawatts per football field ( or , if you prefer , soccer pitch .
) Over the lit surface of the Earth , that 's an energy input of 173,000 terawatts .
The current energy consumption of mankind ?
16 . Note that this is just solar input ( of which some percentage goes into wind power ) .
This does n't even touch on the potential of tapping into ocean tides , which is driven by gravitational forces .
And of course the supernova remnant fuel storage device known as nuclear fission .
Compared to the impact of releasing long-sequestered carbon from beneath the ground back into the atmosphere , stealing power from the wind is chicken feed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere, couldn't you end up with climate changes that could be even more devestating than the global warming you're trying to avoid?
Yes you could.
However, building the number of windmills required to satisfy all of our energy needs wouldn't make a noticeable dent in the climate AT ALL.
Just to give a sense of scale, consider the following: wind power is primarily the result of solar input.
At Earth distance sunlight delivers 1360 watts per (projected) square meter; that's about 10 megawatts per football field (or, if you prefer, soccer pitch.
)  Over the lit surface of the Earth, that's an energy input of 173,000 terawatts.
The current energy consumption of mankind?
16.
 Note that this is just solar input (of which some percentage goes into wind power).
This doesn't even touch on the potential of tapping into ocean tides, which is driven by gravitational forces.
And of course the supernova remnant fuel storage device known as nuclear fission.
Compared to the impact of releasing long-sequestered carbon from beneath the ground back into the atmosphere, stealing power from the wind is chicken feed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702861</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power</title>
	<author>dave420</author>
	<datestamp>1247669280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Breeder reactors?  They'd do the trick.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Breeder reactors ?
They 'd do the trick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Breeder reactors?
They'd do the trick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28731683</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247853360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Arguably the NIMBYs are worse. They offer no alternative suggestions at all and are even less likely than the environmentalists to actually try to understand the technology.</p><p>Then there's the long running plan by congress to put billions of dollars into the ground (pretty much literally) in order to solve the non-existent need to store waste for tens of thousands of years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Arguably the NIMBYs are worse .
They offer no alternative suggestions at all and are even less likely than the environmentalists to actually try to understand the technology.Then there 's the long running plan by congress to put billions of dollars into the ground ( pretty much literally ) in order to solve the non-existent need to store waste for tens of thousands of years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Arguably the NIMBYs are worse.
They offer no alternative suggestions at all and are even less likely than the environmentalists to actually try to understand the technology.Then there's the long running plan by congress to put billions of dollars into the ground (pretty much literally) in order to solve the non-existent need to store waste for tens of thousands of years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699563</id>
	<title>Re:small nuclear powerplants</title>
	<author>TerranFury</author>
	<datestamp>1247587620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, maybe small can be better in some cases.  But there <em>is</em> a solid thermodynamic reason for having large powerplants:</p><p>1 - The volume (and hence power produced) of a heat engine increases with the cube of its scale.</p><p>2 - The area (and hence heat lost) from a heat engine increases with the square of its scale.</p><p>Hence, larger power plants (and jet engines, and diesel motors, and any other heat engines) tend to be significantly more efficient than smaller ones.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , maybe small can be better in some cases .
But there is a solid thermodynamic reason for having large powerplants : 1 - The volume ( and hence power produced ) of a heat engine increases with the cube of its scale.2 - The area ( and hence heat lost ) from a heat engine increases with the square of its scale.Hence , larger power plants ( and jet engines , and diesel motors , and any other heat engines ) tend to be significantly more efficient than smaller ones .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, maybe small can be better in some cases.
But there is a solid thermodynamic reason for having large powerplants:1 - The volume (and hence power produced) of a heat engine increases with the cube of its scale.2 - The area (and hence heat lost) from a heat engine increases with the square of its scale.Hence, larger power plants (and jet engines, and diesel motors, and any other heat engines) tend to be significantly more efficient than smaller ones.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698097</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1247575740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>you can always build an adobe mud house</htmltext>
<tokenext>you can always build an adobe mud house</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you can always build an adobe mud house</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698467</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>The\_Wilschon</author>
	<datestamp>1247578560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically, but it seems, at least in the USA, very difficult for the people to accept.</p></div><p>Also the least future proof.  Electricity or at least energy consumption <i>will</i> increase, barring some disaster that leaves this all a moot point anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically , but it seems , at least in the USA , very difficult for the people to accept.Also the least future proof .
Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase , barring some disaster that leaves this all a moot point anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically, but it seems, at least in the USA, very difficult for the people to accept.Also the least future proof.
Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase, barring some disaster that leaves this all a moot point anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28711205</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247668020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Electricity or at least energy consumption will increase</i></p><p>Energy consumption will not increase so much renewable sources can't cover it even if the population grows.  Here's a link to photos somewhere in <a href="http://writerinaredchair.blogspot.com/2009/07/sudan-in-pictures.html" title="blogspot.com">Sudan</a> [blogspot.com] that's no where near an electrical grid, yet some owners were able to open a net cafe powered by solar panels.  All together the net cafe, a vocational school, and the micro loan office is powered by PVs.  I couldn't find a link to it online but the print edition of IEEE's magazine "<a href="http://www.spectrum.ieee.org/" title="ieee.org">Spectrum</a> [ieee.org]" had an article about how a business was started in Southeast Asia, I don't recall the country, that employed people to assemble small portable solar PV systems.  With loans from a micro loan bank they were sold to villagers who were then able to improve their own lives.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electricity or at least energy consumption will increaseEnergy consumption will not increase so much renewable sources ca n't cover it even if the population grows .
Here 's a link to photos somewhere in Sudan [ blogspot.com ] that 's no where near an electrical grid , yet some owners were able to open a net cafe powered by solar panels .
All together the net cafe , a vocational school , and the micro loan office is powered by PVs .
I could n't find a link to it online but the print edition of IEEE 's magazine " Spectrum [ ieee.org ] " had an article about how a business was started in Southeast Asia , I do n't recall the country , that employed people to assemble small portable solar PV systems .
With loans from a micro loan bank they were sold to villagers who were then able to improve their own lives .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electricity or at least energy consumption will increaseEnergy consumption will not increase so much renewable sources can't cover it even if the population grows.
Here's a link to photos somewhere in Sudan [blogspot.com] that's no where near an electrical grid, yet some owners were able to open a net cafe powered by solar panels.
All together the net cafe, a vocational school, and the micro loan office is powered by PVs.
I couldn't find a link to it online but the print edition of IEEE's magazine "Spectrum [ieee.org]" had an article about how a business was started in Southeast Asia, I don't recall the country, that employed people to assemble small portable solar PV systems.
With loans from a micro loan bank they were sold to villagers who were then able to improve their own lives.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698467</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703285</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>Gilmoure</author>
	<datestamp>1247671620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They're researching storing extra power production by using it to produce Hydrogen and then storing that in large underground storage systems. Could then use that for running peak load generators when needed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They 're researching storing extra power production by using it to produce Hydrogen and then storing that in large underground storage systems .
Could then use that for running peak load generators when needed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They're researching storing extra power production by using it to produce Hydrogen and then storing that in large underground storage systems.
Could then use that for running peak load generators when needed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701845</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697291</id>
	<title>Carbon capture and sequestration</title>
	<author>overshoot</author>
	<datestamp>1247570520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Every time someone suggests that we should continue burning carbon and just store the CO2, I can't help but think of <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0116996/" title="imdb.com"> <i>Mars Attacks</i> </a> [imdb.com].</htmltext>
<tokenext>Every time someone suggests that we should continue burning carbon and just store the CO2 , I ca n't help but think of Mars Attacks [ imdb.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Every time someone suggests that we should continue burning carbon and just store the CO2, I can't help but think of  Mars Attacks  [imdb.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700813</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1247688960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is no need to spend tremendous amounts of everyone's money to replace perfectly good energy sources with different, more expensive energy sources with their own problems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is no need to spend tremendous amounts of everyone 's money to replace perfectly good energy sources with different , more expensive energy sources with their own problems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is no need to spend tremendous amounts of everyone's money to replace perfectly good energy sources with different, more expensive energy sources with their own problems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697727</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702609</id>
	<title>Re:just another bunch of Big Coal shills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247668080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>i agree.  it is the political will.  currently, the focus is on the electrification of vehicles.  hopefully, with the need of more power and more efficiency, we will then see the political will shift its attention to what is needed.  only the immediate needs are focused on.  this is why i think all of this will come down the pipeline in the future as we get over the vehicle shift and thus the shift in what powers those vehicles.  then the focus will be on what this thread is all about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>i agree .
it is the political will .
currently , the focus is on the electrification of vehicles .
hopefully , with the need of more power and more efficiency , we will then see the political will shift its attention to what is needed .
only the immediate needs are focused on .
this is why i think all of this will come down the pipeline in the future as we get over the vehicle shift and thus the shift in what powers those vehicles .
then the focus will be on what this thread is all about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i agree.
it is the political will.
currently, the focus is on the electrification of vehicles.
hopefully, with the need of more power and more efficiency, we will then see the political will shift its attention to what is needed.
only the immediate needs are focused on.
this is why i think all of this will come down the pipeline in the future as we get over the vehicle shift and thus the shift in what powers those vehicles.
then the focus will be on what this thread is all about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>Shakrai</author>
	<datestamp>1247572140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Yes, because we all know that every locale has magic electricity faeries just waiting to produce low-carbon-footprint electricity.</p></div><p>Well, there is one extremely low carbon footprint <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_power" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">technology</a> [wikipedia.org] that we know works and scales well.  Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the "renewables" that we've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , because we all know that every locale has magic electricity faeries just waiting to produce low-carbon-footprint electricity.Well , there is one extremely low carbon footprint technology [ wikipedia.org ] that we know works and scales well .
Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the " renewables " that we 've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, because we all know that every locale has magic electricity faeries just waiting to produce low-carbon-footprint electricity.Well, there is one extremely low carbon footprint technology [wikipedia.org] that we know works and scales well.
Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the "renewables" that we've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697403</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>John.P.Jones</author>
	<datestamp>1247571060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's the beauty of it when winter comes the gorillas freeze!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's the beauty of it when winter comes the gorillas freeze !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's the beauty of it when winter comes the gorillas freeze!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697693</id>
	<title>Re:Carbon sequestering is all fine</title>
	<author>flaming error</author>
	<datestamp>1247572860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I understand this, it's a really interesting perspective.  In citing the heat death of the universe, you seem to worry more about our generating heat than particulate pollution.
<br> <br>
You imply we'd postpone our demise longest by postponing the conversion of our stored energy into heat.
Or even better, converting ambient heat into other forms of energy.
<br> <br>
Such technology exists, and as a bonus it doesn't involve pulling carbon from deep in the earth and shooting it into the sky.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling\_engine" title="wikipedia.org">Stirling Engines</a> [wikipedia.org] and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal\_power" title="wikipedia.org">Geothermal Power</a> [wikipedia.org] FTW.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I understand this , it 's a really interesting perspective .
In citing the heat death of the universe , you seem to worry more about our generating heat than particulate pollution .
You imply we 'd postpone our demise longest by postponing the conversion of our stored energy into heat .
Or even better , converting ambient heat into other forms of energy .
Such technology exists , and as a bonus it does n't involve pulling carbon from deep in the earth and shooting it into the sky .
Stirling Engines [ wikipedia.org ] and Geothermal Power [ wikipedia.org ] FTW .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I understand this, it's a really interesting perspective.
In citing the heat death of the universe, you seem to worry more about our generating heat than particulate pollution.
You imply we'd postpone our demise longest by postponing the conversion of our stored energy into heat.
Or even better, converting ambient heat into other forms of energy.
Such technology exists, and as a bonus it doesn't involve pulling carbon from deep in the earth and shooting it into the sky.
Stirling Engines [wikipedia.org] and Geothermal Power [wikipedia.org] FTW.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28710053</id>
	<title>I agree objections to any nuclear expansion are</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247660580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>just wrong.</i></p><p>Objecting because nuclear power is dirty is wrong?  Objecting because nuclear power is "<a href="http://www.cato.org/pub\_display.php?pub\_id=8792" title="cato.org">Hooked On Subsidies</a> [cato.org]" and is not profitable without those subsidies is wrong?  Objecting because cost overruns <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/study-warns-of-cost-overruns-at-proposed-reactors" title="marketwatch.com">quadruple</a> [marketwatch.com] the cost of building plants is just wrong?</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just wrong.Objecting because nuclear power is dirty is wrong ?
Objecting because nuclear power is " Hooked On Subsidies [ cato.org ] " and is not profitable without those subsidies is wrong ?
Objecting because cost overruns quadruple [ marketwatch.com ] the cost of building plants is just wrong ?
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just wrong.Objecting because nuclear power is dirty is wrong?
Objecting because nuclear power is "Hooked On Subsidies [cato.org]" and is not profitable without those subsidies is wrong?
Objecting because cost overruns quadruple [marketwatch.com] the cost of building plants is just wrong?
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699137</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's ironic that the people who could ultimately end up wrecking the earth are the "greens" and the"save the earth" types who'll do anything they can to prevent nuclear power.</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p>Isn't ignorance wonderful?</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's ironic that the people who could ultimately end up wrecking the earth are the " greens " and the " save the earth " types who 'll do anything they can to prevent nuclear power .
  Is n't ignorance wonderful ?
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's ironic that the people who could ultimately end up wrecking the earth are the "greens" and the"save the earth" types who'll do anything they can to prevent nuclear power.
  Isn't ignorance wonderful?
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699021</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>gandhi\_2</author>
	<datestamp>1247583180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Could it affect the climate? Yes. Is it a reason to worry? No.</p></div><p>I just heard the exact same argument about carbon dioxide.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Could it affect the climate ?
Yes. Is it a reason to worry ?
No.I just heard the exact same argument about carbon dioxide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could it affect the climate?
Yes. Is it a reason to worry?
No.I just heard the exact same argument about carbon dioxide.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698257</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1247576880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Yes but what makes you think wind power could ever take a 'significant' chunk of energy out of the atmosphere? A windmill only takes a tiny fraction of the energy out of the wind that moves through the area described by its rotation. The wind passing through that area is a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere energy that passes over the windmill. You could cover the earth with wind farms, and you'd be taking a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere's energy.</p></div></blockquote><p>All true.  On the other hand, the CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere has changed the atmospheric composition by a tiny fraction, and look where that's gotten us.
</p><p>Personally, I doubt there'll be big problems with wind power, or solar power.  Or Nuclear power.  But, fact is, we won't know till we try it....</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes but what makes you think wind power could ever take a 'significant ' chunk of energy out of the atmosphere ?
A windmill only takes a tiny fraction of the energy out of the wind that moves through the area described by its rotation .
The wind passing through that area is a tiny , tiny fraction of the atmosphere energy that passes over the windmill .
You could cover the earth with wind farms , and you 'd be taking a tiny , tiny fraction of the atmosphere 's energy.All true .
On the other hand , the CO2 we 've pumped into the atmosphere has changed the atmospheric composition by a tiny fraction , and look where that 's gotten us .
Personally , I doubt there 'll be big problems with wind power , or solar power .
Or Nuclear power .
But , fact is , we wo n't know till we try it... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes but what makes you think wind power could ever take a 'significant' chunk of energy out of the atmosphere?
A windmill only takes a tiny fraction of the energy out of the wind that moves through the area described by its rotation.
The wind passing through that area is a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere energy that passes over the windmill.
You could cover the earth with wind farms, and you'd be taking a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere's energy.All true.
On the other hand, the CO2 we've pumped into the atmosphere has changed the atmospheric composition by a tiny fraction, and look where that's gotten us.
Personally, I doubt there'll be big problems with wind power, or solar power.
Or Nuclear power.
But, fact is, we won't know till we try it....
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697887</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>jackchance</author>
	<datestamp>1247574240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are correct that we can't extract a significant amount of the wind energy.  But wind flow is pretty tricky, and even if farms wouldn't affect flow in the upper atmosphere, they could affect flow where we care about it. at the earth's surface.</p><p>I would say that this is still an open question.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are correct that we ca n't extract a significant amount of the wind energy .
But wind flow is pretty tricky , and even if farms would n't affect flow in the upper atmosphere , they could affect flow where we care about it .
at the earth 's surface.I would say that this is still an open question .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are correct that we can't extract a significant amount of the wind energy.
But wind flow is pretty tricky, and even if farms wouldn't affect flow in the upper atmosphere, they could affect flow where we care about it.
at the earth's surface.I would say that this is still an open question.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697873</id>
	<title>just another bunch of Big Coal shills</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>this is what the author <i>really</i> wants to sell us as an alternative to moving to renewable energy.<blockquote><div><p> and the demonstration of technology such as carbon capture and sequestration, which could prove a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions</p></div></blockquote><p>
Capturing CO2 simply requires running smokestack emissions through a chilled ammonia bath at the cost of 25\% input power... i.e. we get to pay for a 125\% increase in the amount of coal burned.
<br> <br>
<b>How do we move all these <i>gigatons</i> of CO2 to disposal sites and store it forever?</b>
<br> <br>Big, high pressure pipelines. Odd that nobody talking up a "clean" coal future ever talks about the comparative costs of a national pipeline network vs a smartgrid.
<br> <br>We have massive unused heavy manufacturing capability in terms of both idle car factories and a trained labor force that can be converted to building renewable generation capability. The question of replacing coal with wind/concentrated thermal solar is a question of political will, not technological capability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>this is what the author really wants to sell us as an alternative to moving to renewable energy .
and the demonstration of technology such as carbon capture and sequestration , which could prove a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions Capturing CO2 simply requires running smokestack emissions through a chilled ammonia bath at the cost of 25 \ % input power... i.e. we get to pay for a 125 \ % increase in the amount of coal burned .
How do we move all these gigatons of CO2 to disposal sites and store it forever ?
Big , high pressure pipelines .
Odd that nobody talking up a " clean " coal future ever talks about the comparative costs of a national pipeline network vs a smartgrid .
We have massive unused heavy manufacturing capability in terms of both idle car factories and a trained labor force that can be converted to building renewable generation capability .
The question of replacing coal with wind/concentrated thermal solar is a question of political will , not technological capability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this is what the author really wants to sell us as an alternative to moving to renewable energy.
and the demonstration of technology such as carbon capture and sequestration, which could prove a cheaper way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions
Capturing CO2 simply requires running smokestack emissions through a chilled ammonia bath at the cost of 25\% input power... i.e. we get to pay for a 125\% increase in the amount of coal burned.
How do we move all these gigatons of CO2 to disposal sites and store it forever?
Big, high pressure pipelines.
Odd that nobody talking up a "clean" coal future ever talks about the comparative costs of a national pipeline network vs a smartgrid.
We have massive unused heavy manufacturing capability in terms of both idle car factories and a trained labor force that can be converted to building renewable generation capability.
The question of replacing coal with wind/concentrated thermal solar is a question of political will, not technological capability.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702331</id>
	<title>Just puhs more incentives for the locals</title>
	<author>hesaigo999ca</author>
	<datestamp>1247666400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just push more incentives for the local sector to initiate a solar panel installation in each and every home...once every home has solar panels, not only recycling its energy, but putting back into the grid, we will see the need for the grid to be much less then what it is now, and would then be unnecessary to expand...only to adapt the new introduction of power into itself.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just push more incentives for the local sector to initiate a solar panel installation in each and every home...once every home has solar panels , not only recycling its energy , but putting back into the grid , we will see the need for the grid to be much less then what it is now , and would then be unnecessary to expand...only to adapt the new introduction of power into itself .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just push more incentives for the local sector to initiate a solar panel installation in each and every home...once every home has solar panels, not only recycling its energy, but putting back into the grid, we will see the need for the grid to be much less then what it is now, and would then be unnecessary to expand...only to adapt the new introduction of power into itself.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28711179</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247667720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Most of this is moot since we intend to use the energy that is collected rather than beam it into space. Therefore, the heat energy from the sun isn't going away, it's just being relocated. Yeah, this can cause weather patterns to change, but overall climate might be ok.</p><p>Actually, the bigger danger may be in that improving solar collection efficiency may also increase the average energy absorption of the planet's surface causing further warming. It doesn't seem like wind power would have this problem, but high efficiency solar collection systems could worsen global warming.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of this is moot since we intend to use the energy that is collected rather than beam it into space .
Therefore , the heat energy from the sun is n't going away , it 's just being relocated .
Yeah , this can cause weather patterns to change , but overall climate might be ok.Actually , the bigger danger may be in that improving solar collection efficiency may also increase the average energy absorption of the planet 's surface causing further warming .
It does n't seem like wind power would have this problem , but high efficiency solar collection systems could worsen global warming .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of this is moot since we intend to use the energy that is collected rather than beam it into space.
Therefore, the heat energy from the sun isn't going away, it's just being relocated.
Yeah, this can cause weather patterns to change, but overall climate might be ok.Actually, the bigger danger may be in that improving solar collection efficiency may also increase the average energy absorption of the planet's surface causing further warming.
It doesn't seem like wind power would have this problem, but high efficiency solar collection systems could worsen global warming.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703825</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247674740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>France regenerates almost all of it's nuclear material, producing virtually no waste. Ie It's been done. What are we waiting for?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>France regenerates almost all of it 's nuclear material , producing virtually no waste .
Ie It 's been done .
What are we waiting for ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>France regenerates almost all of it's nuclear material, producing virtually no waste.
Ie It's been done.
What are we waiting for?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28709537</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247657940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it's called a football pitch you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it 's called a football pitch you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it's called a football pitch you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697917</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697997</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>SkyDude</author>
	<datestamp>1247574960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oh, please! you're not serious? am I just not getting the joke?</p><p>Windmills changing weather patterns? does nobody ever pick up a science book!</p></div><p>Yes, but it's hard to read them through the tinfoil hats.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , please !
you 're not serious ?
am I just not getting the joke ? Windmills changing weather patterns ?
does nobody ever pick up a science book ! Yes , but it 's hard to read them through the tinfoil hats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, please!
you're not serious?
am I just not getting the joke?Windmills changing weather patterns?
does nobody ever pick up a science book!Yes, but it's hard to read them through the tinfoil hats.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697657</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699009</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>LoRdTAW</author>
	<datestamp>1247583060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Another great fact of DC transmission is it allows for synchronized grids to be tied together. 60Hz AC power generation has to be synchronized between multiple generators and generating stations. With DC transmission you don't have to worry about synchronizing the grid ties or even grid frequency. In japan there exists both a 50Hz grid and 60Hz grid. The two are tied together via HVDC links so both grids can operate as one without worrying about frequency or voltage.</p><p>HV dc transmission can also be of mono polar design in which only one transmission line is used for one pole and the earth is used as the other. The only problem is there have been reports of plant life and possibly wildlife being affected by the huge return currents flowing through the ground.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Another great fact of DC transmission is it allows for synchronized grids to be tied together .
60Hz AC power generation has to be synchronized between multiple generators and generating stations .
With DC transmission you do n't have to worry about synchronizing the grid ties or even grid frequency .
In japan there exists both a 50Hz grid and 60Hz grid .
The two are tied together via HVDC links so both grids can operate as one without worrying about frequency or voltage.HV dc transmission can also be of mono polar design in which only one transmission line is used for one pole and the earth is used as the other .
The only problem is there have been reports of plant life and possibly wildlife being affected by the huge return currents flowing through the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another great fact of DC transmission is it allows for synchronized grids to be tied together.
60Hz AC power generation has to be synchronized between multiple generators and generating stations.
With DC transmission you don't have to worry about synchronizing the grid ties or even grid frequency.
In japan there exists both a 50Hz grid and 60Hz grid.
The two are tied together via HVDC links so both grids can operate as one without worrying about frequency or voltage.HV dc transmission can also be of mono polar design in which only one transmission line is used for one pole and the earth is used as the other.
The only problem is there have been reports of plant life and possibly wildlife being affected by the huge return currents flowing through the ground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701291</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>SlashWombat</author>
	<datestamp>1247654040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>People wet themselves with less than 3 watts next to their heads (cell phones)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... The energy density of beamed power will be kilowatts per square metre. If this doesn't worry you, you must have about as many brain cells as a common garden amoeba. <br> <br>The argument that it will be at a frequency that passes through water does not hold, as the human water bag also contains salt, thus altering the absorption very dramatically. Even AC power frequencies have been pilloried over the years as dangerous to humans. (whether this is actually true is still a moot point<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...)</htmltext>
<tokenext>People wet themselves with less than 3 watts next to their heads ( cell phones ) ... The energy density of beamed power will be kilowatts per square metre .
If this does n't worry you , you must have about as many brain cells as a common garden amoeba .
The argument that it will be at a frequency that passes through water does not hold , as the human water bag also contains salt , thus altering the absorption very dramatically .
Even AC power frequencies have been pilloried over the years as dangerous to humans .
( whether this is actually true is still a moot point ... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People wet themselves with less than 3 watts next to their heads (cell phones) ... The energy density of beamed power will be kilowatts per square metre.
If this doesn't worry you, you must have about as many brain cells as a common garden amoeba.
The argument that it will be at a frequency that passes through water does not hold, as the human water bag also contains salt, thus altering the absorption very dramatically.
Even AC power frequencies have been pilloried over the years as dangerous to humans.
(whether this is actually true is still a moot point ...)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28706395</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247686560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>    <p><div class="quote"><p>3) many reactor technologies that can reduce #1 just haven't been proven to be viable yet(breeder reactors, fast reactors, etc)</p></div><p>I do believe that we already did this years ago in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental\_Breeder\_Reactor\_II" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Idaho</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Less containment vessels would need to be made with facility reprocessing, like France does with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PUREX" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">PUREX</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>except that we do not, because some dumb reason. Instead we will just take it whole and bury it in someones backyard.</p><p>Australia has 23\% of the worlds uranium and are stepping up their mining. Besides if India gets there way <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced\_Heavy\_Water\_Reactor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">with Thorium</a> [wikipedia.org]<br>there will be less demand for uranium.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>3 ) many reactor technologies that can reduce # 1 just have n't been proven to be viable yet ( breeder reactors , fast reactors , etc ) I do believe that we already did this years ago in Idaho [ wikipedia.org ] Less containment vessels would need to be made with facility reprocessing , like France does with PUREX [ wikipedia.org ] except that we do not , because some dumb reason .
Instead we will just take it whole and bury it in someones backyard.Australia has 23 \ % of the worlds uranium and are stepping up their mining .
Besides if India gets there way with Thorium [ wikipedia.org ] there will be less demand for uranium .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    3) many reactor technologies that can reduce #1 just haven't been proven to be viable yet(breeder reactors, fast reactors, etc)I do believe that we already did this years ago in Idaho [wikipedia.org]Less containment vessels would need to be made with facility reprocessing, like France does with PUREX [wikipedia.org]except that we do not, because some dumb reason.
Instead we will just take it whole and bury it in someones backyard.Australia has 23\% of the worlds uranium and are stepping up their mining.
Besides if India gets there way with Thorium [wikipedia.org]there will be less demand for uranium.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28731863</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247854140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Item 2 is significant, but fixable and arguably a way to restore balance to the U.S. economy.</p><p>Item 1 is irrelevant with breeder and fast reactors. Also irrelevant if we re-process the 'spent' fuel we already have which is about 95\% usable fuel</p><p>Item 3 is incorrect. The very first reactor to produce electricity was a breeder. A number of others (now decommissioned) operated safely for decades. Several are currently in operation in France, Japan, India, and Russia, and more are planned. Meanwhile, we have these massive stockpiles of DU hanging around.</p><p>Reprocessing is a well proven technology. We don't do it in the U.S. because we don't want countries like India, Pakistan, and North Korea to develop the bomb (oops).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Item 2 is significant , but fixable and arguably a way to restore balance to the U.S. economy.Item 1 is irrelevant with breeder and fast reactors .
Also irrelevant if we re-process the 'spent ' fuel we already have which is about 95 \ % usable fuelItem 3 is incorrect .
The very first reactor to produce electricity was a breeder .
A number of others ( now decommissioned ) operated safely for decades .
Several are currently in operation in France , Japan , India , and Russia , and more are planned .
Meanwhile , we have these massive stockpiles of DU hanging around.Reprocessing is a well proven technology .
We do n't do it in the U.S. because we do n't want countries like India , Pakistan , and North Korea to develop the bomb ( oops ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Item 2 is significant, but fixable and arguably a way to restore balance to the U.S. economy.Item 1 is irrelevant with breeder and fast reactors.
Also irrelevant if we re-process the 'spent' fuel we already have which is about 95\% usable fuelItem 3 is incorrect.
The very first reactor to produce electricity was a breeder.
A number of others (now decommissioned) operated safely for decades.
Several are currently in operation in France, Japan, India, and Russia, and more are planned.
Meanwhile, we have these massive stockpiles of DU hanging around.Reprocessing is a well proven technology.
We don't do it in the U.S. because we don't want countries like India, Pakistan, and North Korea to develop the bomb (oops).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700809</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1247688840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>1 Billion new energy efficient houses to replace the old non-energy efficient ones may be to a great advantage.</p> </div><p>Benefit - <i>to whom</i>?  Certainly not to the people who have to pay to replace their perfectly good homes...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>1 Billion new energy efficient houses to replace the old non-energy efficient ones may be to a great advantage .
Benefit - to whom ?
Certainly not to the people who have to pay to replace their perfectly good homes.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1 Billion new energy efficient houses to replace the old non-energy efficient ones may be to a great advantage.
Benefit - to whom?
Certainly not to the people who have to pay to replace their perfectly good homes...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698693</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697297</id>
	<title>Re:local power - yes, carbon capture - no ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247570580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>just how the fuck do you propose to do that? This is article is nothing more then trying to grab money and move it to the northeast v.s. the midwest. This has nothing to do with the environment. By the way, how many fucking wind turbines you think we need to put in NYC? I'll give you a hint, it won't work.</p><p>It makes perfect fucking sense to put wind farms where the *gasp* wind is.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>just how the fuck do you propose to do that ?
This is article is nothing more then trying to grab money and move it to the northeast v.s .
the midwest .
This has nothing to do with the environment .
By the way , how many fucking wind turbines you think we need to put in NYC ?
I 'll give you a hint , it wo n't work.It makes perfect fucking sense to put wind farms where the * gasp * wind is .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just how the fuck do you propose to do that?
This is article is nothing more then trying to grab money and move it to the northeast v.s.
the midwest.
This has nothing to do with the environment.
By the way, how many fucking wind turbines you think we need to put in NYC?
I'll give you a hint, it won't work.It makes perfect fucking sense to put wind farms where the *gasp* wind is.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698361</id>
	<title>Re:small nuclear powerplants</title>
	<author>CrimsonAvenger</author>
	<datestamp>1247577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>just think a nuclear power plant about the size of two shipping containers could manage an entire city or burrough,</p></div></blockquote><p>No.  It couldn't.
</p><p>Even the generators for an entire city are larger than that physically, much less the nuclear reactor, much less the steam generators, much less the cooling towers, much less the control systems for same.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>just think a nuclear power plant about the size of two shipping containers could manage an entire city or burrough,No .
It could n't .
Even the generators for an entire city are larger than that physically , much less the nuclear reactor , much less the steam generators , much less the cooling towers , much less the control systems for same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>just think a nuclear power plant about the size of two shipping containers could manage an entire city or burrough,No.
It couldn't.
Even the generators for an entire city are larger than that physically, much less the nuclear reactor, much less the steam generators, much less the cooling towers, much less the control systems for same.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697419</id>
	<title>Re:There's another advantage</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247571120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>In other words, less efficient and more expensive to maintain.</htmltext>
<tokenext>In other words , less efficient and more expensive to maintain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In other words, less efficient and more expensive to maintain.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697249</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698693</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>jellomizer</author>
	<datestamp>1247580180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Real Environmentalists understand tradeoffs exist for everything you do, and you need to weigh the benefit of with the tradeoff.<br>Hippies or Psuto-Hyppies hear the science but don't understand it or see it in a big picture and give a big whine and fuss about everything, they treat science like a religion blindly following what it says, without thinking big picture.</p><p>What is the benefit of 1 billion houses, 1 Billion new energy efficient houses to replace the old non-energy efficient ones may be to a great advantage. WIth Proper Logging methods within 20 years all those trees will be back, and we get an overall benefit vs. the tradeoff.</p><p>Now if those 1 billion houses were just second homes for peoples excess then the cost could be worse then the tradeoffs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Real Environmentalists understand tradeoffs exist for everything you do , and you need to weigh the benefit of with the tradeoff.Hippies or Psuto-Hyppies hear the science but do n't understand it or see it in a big picture and give a big whine and fuss about everything , they treat science like a religion blindly following what it says , without thinking big picture.What is the benefit of 1 billion houses , 1 Billion new energy efficient houses to replace the old non-energy efficient ones may be to a great advantage .
WIth Proper Logging methods within 20 years all those trees will be back , and we get an overall benefit vs. the tradeoff.Now if those 1 billion houses were just second homes for peoples excess then the cost could be worse then the tradeoffs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Real Environmentalists understand tradeoffs exist for everything you do, and you need to weigh the benefit of with the tradeoff.Hippies or Psuto-Hyppies hear the science but don't understand it or see it in a big picture and give a big whine and fuss about everything, they treat science like a religion blindly following what it says, without thinking big picture.What is the benefit of 1 billion houses, 1 Billion new energy efficient houses to replace the old non-energy efficient ones may be to a great advantage.
WIth Proper Logging methods within 20 years all those trees will be back, and we get an overall benefit vs. the tradeoff.Now if those 1 billion houses were just second homes for peoples excess then the cost could be worse then the tradeoffs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697855</id>
	<title>Both</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247574000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to do both, and sequestering with current technologies will not last long term.</p><p>We need to be using solar thermal and not wind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to do both , and sequestering with current technologies will not last long term.We need to be using solar thermal and not wind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to do both, and sequestering with current technologies will not last long term.We need to be using solar thermal and not wind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697249</id>
	<title>There's another advantage</title>
	<author>hyades1</author>
	<datestamp>1247570340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Decentralized generation seems likely to offer more jobs at the local level, both for construction of smaller, more numerous generating facilities and for on-going staffing and maintenance. </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Decentralized generation seems likely to offer more jobs at the local level , both for construction of smaller , more numerous generating facilities and for on-going staffing and maintenance .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Decentralized generation seems likely to offer more jobs at the local level, both for construction of smaller, more numerous generating facilities and for on-going staffing and maintenance. </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704855</id>
	<title>Trojan</title>
	<author>sabt-pestnu</author>
	<datestamp>1247680140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan\_Nuclear\_Power\_Plant" title="wikipedia.org">Trojan</a> [wikipedia.org] shows a case where even "standard" reactor technologies are deficient.  In the case of Trojan, the steam system (generators and transport tubes alike) broke down long before the anticipated lifetime of either the plant or the specific items.</p><p>A more important objection to Nuclear power is waste disposal.  If you think siting a plant meets objections, it ain't nothing to siting a disposal repository.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive\_waste#Vitrification" title="wikipedia.org">Vitrification</a> [wikipedia.org], while it holds promise, isn't there yet.  <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive\_waste#Geologic\_disposal" title="wikipedia.org">Subduction disposal</a> [wikipedia.org] has higher-level objections: countries would have to collectively pull their heads out, over Law of the Sea objections.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Trojan [ wikipedia.org ] shows a case where even " standard " reactor technologies are deficient .
In the case of Trojan , the steam system ( generators and transport tubes alike ) broke down long before the anticipated lifetime of either the plant or the specific items.A more important objection to Nuclear power is waste disposal .
If you think siting a plant meets objections , it ai n't nothing to siting a disposal repository .
Vitrification [ wikipedia.org ] , while it holds promise , is n't there yet .
Subduction disposal [ wikipedia.org ] has higher-level objections : countries would have to collectively pull their heads out , over Law of the Sea objections .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Trojan [wikipedia.org] shows a case where even "standard" reactor technologies are deficient.
In the case of Trojan, the steam system (generators and transport tubes alike) broke down long before the anticipated lifetime of either the plant or the specific items.A more important objection to Nuclear power is waste disposal.
If you think siting a plant meets objections, it ain't nothing to siting a disposal repository.
Vitrification [wikipedia.org], while it holds promise, isn't there yet.
Subduction disposal [wikipedia.org] has higher-level objections: countries would have to collectively pull their heads out, over Law of the Sea objections.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245</id>
	<title>local power - yes, carbon capture - no ?</title>
	<author>cats-paw</author>
	<datestamp>1247570280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I spell carbon capture "c o a l  s u b s i d y".</p><p>It's not going to work, it's just another way to subsidize coal companies, as if letting them blow the tops off of mountains wasn't enough.</p><p>Installing renewables local to where the power is needed is, of course, a great idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I spell carbon capture " c o a l s u b s i d y " .It 's not going to work , it 's just another way to subsidize coal companies , as if letting them blow the tops off of mountains was n't enough.Installing renewables local to where the power is needed is , of course , a great idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I spell carbon capture "c o a l  s u b s i d y".It's not going to work, it's just another way to subsidize coal companies, as if letting them blow the tops off of mountains wasn't enough.Installing renewables local to where the power is needed is, of course, a great idea.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697809</id>
	<title>Re: has anyone...?</title>
	<author>macraig</author>
	<datestamp>1247573700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, anyone has indeed considered it, at least considered the possibility, which is more than one can apparently say for some of the experts producing reports and studies like the last one about giant wind farms here on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. in the last week or two.  They seem to have rather optimistic tunnel vision, which seems to be a common affliction with too many people who become too emotionally attached to ideas.  They want so much to "make it so" (to mimic Jean-Luc Picard) that they become a bit delusional in the process.</p><p>What you suggested as a consequence is something that should be addressed and investigated in depth to rule it out.  Trying to mention such issues is sometimes like being a protester trying to stare down a steamroller with its clutch released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , anyone has indeed considered it , at least considered the possibility , which is more than one can apparently say for some of the experts producing reports and studies like the last one about giant wind farms here on / .
in the last week or two .
They seem to have rather optimistic tunnel vision , which seems to be a common affliction with too many people who become too emotionally attached to ideas .
They want so much to " make it so " ( to mimic Jean-Luc Picard ) that they become a bit delusional in the process.What you suggested as a consequence is something that should be addressed and investigated in depth to rule it out .
Trying to mention such issues is sometimes like being a protester trying to stare down a steamroller with its clutch released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, anyone has indeed considered it, at least considered the possibility, which is more than one can apparently say for some of the experts producing reports and studies like the last one about giant wind farms here on /.
in the last week or two.
They seem to have rather optimistic tunnel vision, which seems to be a common affliction with too many people who become too emotionally attached to ideas.
They want so much to "make it so" (to mimic Jean-Luc Picard) that they become a bit delusional in the process.What you suggested as a consequence is something that should be addressed and investigated in depth to rule it out.
Trying to mention such issues is sometimes like being a protester trying to stare down a steamroller with its clutch released.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704841</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear!</title>
	<author>NivekEnterprises</author>
	<datestamp>1247680140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I actually work in the nuclear power industry (AP1000 FTW!) and I can't really imagine a future where all of our energy is from nuclear. Sure it can replace coal, but it's not going to phase out hydro and I expect someday someone will give us 80\% efficient solar panels and New Mexico will be the first state to get all of their energy via solar.</p><p>Nuclear is great in my opinion, it's safe, clean and efficient. With fuel reprocessing it could be even better in the USA. However, solar, wind, hydro and maybe even exercise centers are still going to be included in our erergy supply.</p><p>A diversified approach is the way to go.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I actually work in the nuclear power industry ( AP1000 FTW !
) and I ca n't really imagine a future where all of our energy is from nuclear .
Sure it can replace coal , but it 's not going to phase out hydro and I expect someday someone will give us 80 \ % efficient solar panels and New Mexico will be the first state to get all of their energy via solar.Nuclear is great in my opinion , it 's safe , clean and efficient .
With fuel reprocessing it could be even better in the USA .
However , solar , wind , hydro and maybe even exercise centers are still going to be included in our erergy supply.A diversified approach is the way to go .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I actually work in the nuclear power industry (AP1000 FTW!
) and I can't really imagine a future where all of our energy is from nuclear.
Sure it can replace coal, but it's not going to phase out hydro and I expect someday someone will give us 80\% efficient solar panels and New Mexico will be the first state to get all of their energy via solar.Nuclear is great in my opinion, it's safe, clean and efficient.
With fuel reprocessing it could be even better in the USA.
However, solar, wind, hydro and maybe even exercise centers are still going to be included in our erergy supply.A diversified approach is the way to go.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698919</id>
	<title>Re:local power - yes, carbon capture - no ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247582100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>as if letting them blow the tops off of mountains wasn't enough.</i></p><p>Were you planning on doing something with those mountain tops? If not, why do you have a problem with someone else making use of them?</p><p>In the grand scheme of things, a few dozen mountain tops here or there won't make any difference. Unless they're in your backyard, I guess.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>as if letting them blow the tops off of mountains was n't enough.Were you planning on doing something with those mountain tops ?
If not , why do you have a problem with someone else making use of them ? In the grand scheme of things , a few dozen mountain tops here or there wo n't make any difference .
Unless they 're in your backyard , I guess .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>as if letting them blow the tops off of mountains wasn't enough.Were you planning on doing something with those mountain tops?
If not, why do you have a problem with someone else making use of them?In the grand scheme of things, a few dozen mountain tops here or there won't make any difference.
Unless they're in your backyard, I guess.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697641</id>
	<title>You Gotta Be Joking</title>
	<author>v(*\_*)vvvv</author>
	<datestamp>1247572500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere, couldn't you end up with climate changes that could be even more devestating than the global warming you're trying to avoid?</p></div><p>No. The wind is surface wind, so imagine how much wind is actually in the atmosphere. The wind pushing your clouds is a bit higher up. With sunlight, the energy is either heating your tiles, or charging them. It is a preference, not a robbery of some sort. And we find charge has more uses than hot tiles.</p><p>Free, though, it is not, and you are correct about there being a downside. It is in the form of cost, infrastructure, and energy efficiency, among others.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere , could n't you end up with climate changes that could be even more devestating than the global warming you 're trying to avoid ? No .
The wind is surface wind , so imagine how much wind is actually in the atmosphere .
The wind pushing your clouds is a bit higher up .
With sunlight , the energy is either heating your tiles , or charging them .
It is a preference , not a robbery of some sort .
And we find charge has more uses than hot tiles.Free , though , it is not , and you are correct about there being a downside .
It is in the form of cost , infrastructure , and energy efficiency , among others .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere, couldn't you end up with climate changes that could be even more devestating than the global warming you're trying to avoid?No.
The wind is surface wind, so imagine how much wind is actually in the atmosphere.
The wind pushing your clouds is a bit higher up.
With sunlight, the energy is either heating your tiles, or charging them.
It is a preference, not a robbery of some sort.
And we find charge has more uses than hot tiles.Free, though, it is not, and you are correct about there being a downside.
It is in the form of cost, infrastructure, and energy efficiency, among others.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697517</id>
	<title>Smart Grid</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247571600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Smart Grid technology is actually just around the corner.  I was just listening to the CEO of Cisco talk about how they're trying to make a big push into this industry, a quick search turned up this; <a href="http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/energy/smart\_grid\_solutions.html" title="cisco.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/energy/smart\_grid\_solutions.html</a> [cisco.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Smart Grid technology is actually just around the corner .
I was just listening to the CEO of Cisco talk about how they 're trying to make a big push into this industry , a quick search turned up this ; http : //www.cisco.com/web/strategy/energy/smart \ _grid \ _solutions.html [ cisco.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Smart Grid technology is actually just around the corner.
I was just listening to the CEO of Cisco talk about how they're trying to make a big push into this industry, a quick search turned up this; http://www.cisco.com/web/strategy/energy/smart\_grid\_solutions.html [cisco.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703691</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247673960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>   &gt; There will \_always\_ be more people.</p><p>Yes.<br>Day two, biology class. Wow, yes, twice as many fruit flies as day one.<br>Day three, yes, twice as many again. Just imagine the quadrillion flies we will have in a month.<br>Day four.  Hey, what happened?</p><p>But, of course, humans are smarter than drosophila....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; There will \ _always \ _ be more people.Yes.Day two , biology class .
Wow , yes , twice as many fruit flies as day one.Day three , yes , twice as many again .
Just imagine the quadrillion flies we will have in a month.Day four .
Hey , what happened ? But , of course , humans are smarter than drosophila... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>   &gt; There will \_always\_ be more people.Yes.Day two, biology class.
Wow, yes, twice as many fruit flies as day one.Day three, yes, twice as many again.
Just imagine the quadrillion flies we will have in a month.Day four.
Hey, what happened?But, of course, humans are smarter than drosophila....</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247577840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically, but it seems, at least in the USA, very difficult for the people to accept.</p></div><p>There will \_always\_ be more people.<br>There will \_always\_ be greater demand for resources.<br>This seems very difficult for conservationists to understand.</p><p>You were right with the nuclear argument if we can just deprogram^H^H^H^Heducate the populace about how safe it really is; at least enough to placate the NIMBY crowd.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically , but it seems , at least in the USA , very difficult for the people to accept.There will \ _always \ _ be more people.There will \ _always \ _ be greater demand for resources.This seems very difficult for conservationists to understand.You were right with the nuclear argument if we can just deprogram ^ H ^ H ^ H ^ Heducate the populace about how safe it really is ; at least enough to placate the NIMBY crowd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically, but it seems, at least in the USA, very difficult for the people to accept.There will \_always\_ be more people.There will \_always\_ be greater demand for resources.This seems very difficult for conservationists to understand.You were right with the nuclear argument if we can just deprogram^H^H^H^Heducate the populace about how safe it really is; at least enough to placate the NIMBY crowd.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power</title>
	<author>Dare nMc</author>
	<datestamp>1247592180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuclear is only a partial solution (currently) also.  It is all mostly in your wiki article, but the high points IMHO:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 1) shortage of Uranium mining (used at 2* the rate it is mined currently.)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 2) shortage of manufacturing capacity (containment vessels)<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; 3) many reactor technologies that can reduce #1 just haven't been proven to be viable yet(breeder reactors, fast reactors, etc)</p><p>I agree objections to any nuclear expansion are just wrong.  But we can't just drop any options, because their is clearly no one solution to cover our energy addiction, let alone to get us through the next 20 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear is only a partial solution ( currently ) also .
It is all mostly in your wiki article , but the high points IMHO :     1 ) shortage of Uranium mining ( used at 2 * the rate it is mined currently .
)     2 ) shortage of manufacturing capacity ( containment vessels )     3 ) many reactor technologies that can reduce # 1 just have n't been proven to be viable yet ( breeder reactors , fast reactors , etc ) I agree objections to any nuclear expansion are just wrong .
But we ca n't just drop any options , because their is clearly no one solution to cover our energy addiction , let alone to get us through the next 20 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear is only a partial solution (currently) also.
It is all mostly in your wiki article, but the high points IMHO:
    1) shortage of Uranium mining (used at 2* the rate it is mined currently.
)
    2) shortage of manufacturing capacity (containment vessels)
    3) many reactor technologies that can reduce #1 just haven't been proven to be viable yet(breeder reactors, fast reactors, etc)I agree objections to any nuclear expansion are just wrong.
But we can't just drop any options, because their is clearly no one solution to cover our energy addiction, let alone to get us through the next 20 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697581</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>mikelieman</author>
	<datestamp>1247572080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It does when you beam the electricity to ground-stations from orbiting solar power satellites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It does when you beam the electricity to ground-stations from orbiting solar power satellites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It does when you beam the electricity to ground-stations from orbiting solar power satellites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702853</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear power</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247669280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Reprocessing fuel rods, which have had only about 5\% of usable energy extracted, will extend the Uranium supply considerably.   Uranium reserves have increased over the last decade because the price has gone up, triggering exploration.  And the Japanese are working on a technology to extract Uranium from seawater (it works, they just need to get the price down).</p><p>In addition to the advance reactor technologies, Thorium is also a viable fission fuel, and it is about four times as abundant as Uranium.  India, which has significant Thorium reserves, has been developing a 300MW Advanced Heavy Water Reactor, which they expect to be fully operational in 2011.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Reprocessing fuel rods , which have had only about 5 \ % of usable energy extracted , will extend the Uranium supply considerably .
Uranium reserves have increased over the last decade because the price has gone up , triggering exploration .
And the Japanese are working on a technology to extract Uranium from seawater ( it works , they just need to get the price down ) .In addition to the advance reactor technologies , Thorium is also a viable fission fuel , and it is about four times as abundant as Uranium .
India , which has significant Thorium reserves , has been developing a 300MW Advanced Heavy Water Reactor , which they expect to be fully operational in 2011 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Reprocessing fuel rods, which have had only about 5\% of usable energy extracted, will extend the Uranium supply considerably.
Uranium reserves have increased over the last decade because the price has gone up, triggering exploration.
And the Japanese are working on a technology to extract Uranium from seawater (it works, they just need to get the price down).In addition to the advance reactor technologies, Thorium is also a viable fission fuel, and it is about four times as abundant as Uranium.
India, which has significant Thorium reserves, has been developing a 300MW Advanced Heavy Water Reactor, which they expect to be fully operational in 2011.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697369</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>publiclurker</author>
	<datestamp>1247570940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Considering the size of the earth relative to the size of any windmill farms, I seriously doubt we could ever extract a significant amount of the available energy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Considering the size of the earth relative to the size of any windmill farms , I seriously doubt we could ever extract a significant amount of the available energy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Considering the size of the earth relative to the size of any windmill farms, I seriously doubt we could ever extract a significant amount of the available energy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</id>
	<title>Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>elrous0</author>
	<datestamp>1247570100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this talk about solar and wind energy being "free" and building these giant wind farms and turbines has had me wondering about something that I never see addressed. Has anyone considered the meteorological effects of removing all that energy from the atmosphere? I mean wind and solar energy serve a FUNCTION, they move our weather systems around, melt our snow, power our rivers, etc. You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere, couldn't you end up with climate changes that could be even more devestating than the global warming you're trying to avoid?
</p><p>
No energy is truly "free," after all. But environmentalists keep talking about wind and solar as if there's NO downside whatsoever. It seems to me that there might be a pretty big one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this talk about solar and wind energy being " free " and building these giant wind farms and turbines has had me wondering about something that I never see addressed .
Has anyone considered the meteorological effects of removing all that energy from the atmosphere ?
I mean wind and solar energy serve a FUNCTION , they move our weather systems around , melt our snow , power our rivers , etc .
You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere , could n't you end up with climate changes that could be even more devestating than the global warming you 're trying to avoid ?
No energy is truly " free , " after all .
But environmentalists keep talking about wind and solar as if there 's NO downside whatsoever .
It seems to me that there might be a pretty big one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this talk about solar and wind energy being "free" and building these giant wind farms and turbines has had me wondering about something that I never see addressed.
Has anyone considered the meteorological effects of removing all that energy from the atmosphere?
I mean wind and solar energy serve a FUNCTION, they move our weather systems around, melt our snow, power our rivers, etc.
You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere, couldn't you end up with climate changes that could be even more devestating than the global warming you're trying to avoid?
No energy is truly "free," after all.
But environmentalists keep talking about wind and solar as if there's NO downside whatsoever.
It seems to me that there might be a pretty big one.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698933</id>
	<title>And don't foget the sandpiles...</title>
	<author>jvv62</author>
	<datestamp>1247582220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Another reason to stay away from a National grid is the effect of linking all the grids together into one system means a single catastrophic failure becomes possible.  We have already seen this sort of problem on both coasts.  The bigger the sandpile, the bigger the avalanche.  We should be pushing into smaller more local stuff.  Right now individual solar is still too expensive, but if we say no to more power lines, the power companies might do more in the line of peak pricing, buying back and conservation helps that some utilities are already doing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Another reason to stay away from a National grid is the effect of linking all the grids together into one system means a single catastrophic failure becomes possible .
We have already seen this sort of problem on both coasts .
The bigger the sandpile , the bigger the avalanche .
We should be pushing into smaller more local stuff .
Right now individual solar is still too expensive , but if we say no to more power lines , the power companies might do more in the line of peak pricing , buying back and conservation helps that some utilities are already doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Another reason to stay away from a National grid is the effect of linking all the grids together into one system means a single catastrophic failure becomes possible.
We have already seen this sort of problem on both coasts.
The bigger the sandpile, the bigger the avalanche.
We should be pushing into smaller more local stuff.
Right now individual solar is still too expensive, but if we say no to more power lines, the power companies might do more in the line of peak pricing, buying back and conservation helps that some utilities are already doing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28707977</id>
	<title>Re:Smart Grid</title>
	<author>jeffstar</author>
	<datestamp>1247650620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been scanning all the comments looking for one that actually said something about smart grids. The discussion thus far has been all about wind, nuclear, AC vs DC but nothing about the actual smart grid. I've come late to the discussion and it is so far down the front page probably nobody will read my post anyway, but here I go.</p><p>I'm an electrical engineer, I work on power stations, I know all about smart meters, but I really fail to see or understand the smart grid.</p><p>FTFA:<br> <i> What's more important is developing a smarter grid. Equipping transmission lines, distribution networks, and electrical appliances in homes and businesses with sensors and controls that can communicate remotely with grid operators could reduce demand for electricity, allow existing lines to handle more electricity, and make it easier to integrate wind and other intermittent renewable-energy technologies.<br> </i> </p><p>OK, I get that smart meters that could control load in the home and reduce peak demand and provide a nice little HMI where people could see how much power they were using right in their living room. Problem is, power is too cheap in my eyes nobody is going to give a shit how much it costs to keep the AC on in the middle of the day because it is hot and they want to be cool.</p><p>There was a study where they got the people who were the most keen to save energy, the zealots, to participate with smart meters.  They could see the price in their home and decide to have dinner later, do the washing later, turn off the AC, etc.  For these people, who were selected as the most likely to respond to price signals, it took a 6-fold increase (from $30MWH to 180MWH) before they changed their patterns.  So I don't really think the time of use billing in smart meters will make an impact, mostly because politicians won't allow the cost of energy to swing that much throughout the day.</p><p>That being said, what if it was all automatic and the smart meter could talk to the dishwasher and the AC and the fridge! Show me ANY appliance that has a zigbee radio and a meter that it can talk to.  It is still all pie-in-the sky because these companies can't figure out how to work with eachother to get their products to interoperate.  We're still in a big power grab phase where people are pushing their own product to become the standard.</p><p>Now what sensors and controls did you want to attach to transmission lines and distribution networks? How are sensors going to allow transmission lines to handle more power?  what controls are we missing?<br>Seems like to me like the grid operators and network operators already have more information than they can process with the thousands of points coming in from their scada systems.</p><p> <i> <br>As it is, grid operators have little information about real-time conditions on the grid and no control over demand. With a smart grid, power could quickly be rerouted in response to increases and decreases in wind power. Operators would know how hot transmission lines are getting, allowing them to decide with more accuracy how much power they can carry. Also, consumers could program their homes to use less power during times of peak demand, reducing the need for new power plants.</i> </p><p>What is real-time. a recent article quotes 4s delay. another said they could get 30 samples per second! what good is that? what good is the information if it arrives 4s sooner? Operating a power system isn't  like a video game where a 4s difference in hitting a button matters.</p><p>Operators already know how much power flows through any given circuit on the transmission network, right?! All those CTs at every substation all feed into the SCADA system right?! maybe they don't know the temperature of the line but they can guess pretty acurately by the load on it and the temperature of the day. They have open/close control on every circuit.</p><p>So here is a feature of the smart grid, power could quickly be rerouted. there is some meat. I wonder how this is achieved as controlling AC power flows is very difficult AFAIK, bu</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been scanning all the comments looking for one that actually said something about smart grids .
The discussion thus far has been all about wind , nuclear , AC vs DC but nothing about the actual smart grid .
I 've come late to the discussion and it is so far down the front page probably nobody will read my post anyway , but here I go.I 'm an electrical engineer , I work on power stations , I know all about smart meters , but I really fail to see or understand the smart grid.FTFA : What 's more important is developing a smarter grid .
Equipping transmission lines , distribution networks , and electrical appliances in homes and businesses with sensors and controls that can communicate remotely with grid operators could reduce demand for electricity , allow existing lines to handle more electricity , and make it easier to integrate wind and other intermittent renewable-energy technologies .
OK , I get that smart meters that could control load in the home and reduce peak demand and provide a nice little HMI where people could see how much power they were using right in their living room .
Problem is , power is too cheap in my eyes nobody is going to give a shit how much it costs to keep the AC on in the middle of the day because it is hot and they want to be cool.There was a study where they got the people who were the most keen to save energy , the zealots , to participate with smart meters .
They could see the price in their home and decide to have dinner later , do the washing later , turn off the AC , etc .
For these people , who were selected as the most likely to respond to price signals , it took a 6-fold increase ( from $ 30MWH to 180MWH ) before they changed their patterns .
So I do n't really think the time of use billing in smart meters will make an impact , mostly because politicians wo n't allow the cost of energy to swing that much throughout the day.That being said , what if it was all automatic and the smart meter could talk to the dishwasher and the AC and the fridge !
Show me ANY appliance that has a zigbee radio and a meter that it can talk to .
It is still all pie-in-the sky because these companies ca n't figure out how to work with eachother to get their products to interoperate .
We 're still in a big power grab phase where people are pushing their own product to become the standard.Now what sensors and controls did you want to attach to transmission lines and distribution networks ?
How are sensors going to allow transmission lines to handle more power ?
what controls are we missing ? Seems like to me like the grid operators and network operators already have more information than they can process with the thousands of points coming in from their scada systems .
As it is , grid operators have little information about real-time conditions on the grid and no control over demand .
With a smart grid , power could quickly be rerouted in response to increases and decreases in wind power .
Operators would know how hot transmission lines are getting , allowing them to decide with more accuracy how much power they can carry .
Also , consumers could program their homes to use less power during times of peak demand , reducing the need for new power plants .
What is real-time .
a recent article quotes 4s delay .
another said they could get 30 samples per second !
what good is that ?
what good is the information if it arrives 4s sooner ?
Operating a power system is n't like a video game where a 4s difference in hitting a button matters.Operators already know how much power flows through any given circuit on the transmission network , right ? !
All those CTs at every substation all feed into the SCADA system right ? !
maybe they do n't know the temperature of the line but they can guess pretty acurately by the load on it and the temperature of the day .
They have open/close control on every circuit.So here is a feature of the smart grid , power could quickly be rerouted .
there is some meat .
I wonder how this is achieved as controlling AC power flows is very difficult AFAIK , bu</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been scanning all the comments looking for one that actually said something about smart grids.
The discussion thus far has been all about wind, nuclear, AC vs DC but nothing about the actual smart grid.
I've come late to the discussion and it is so far down the front page probably nobody will read my post anyway, but here I go.I'm an electrical engineer, I work on power stations, I know all about smart meters, but I really fail to see or understand the smart grid.FTFA:  What's more important is developing a smarter grid.
Equipping transmission lines, distribution networks, and electrical appliances in homes and businesses with sensors and controls that can communicate remotely with grid operators could reduce demand for electricity, allow existing lines to handle more electricity, and make it easier to integrate wind and other intermittent renewable-energy technologies.
OK, I get that smart meters that could control load in the home and reduce peak demand and provide a nice little HMI where people could see how much power they were using right in their living room.
Problem is, power is too cheap in my eyes nobody is going to give a shit how much it costs to keep the AC on in the middle of the day because it is hot and they want to be cool.There was a study where they got the people who were the most keen to save energy, the zealots, to participate with smart meters.
They could see the price in their home and decide to have dinner later, do the washing later, turn off the AC, etc.
For these people, who were selected as the most likely to respond to price signals, it took a 6-fold increase (from $30MWH to 180MWH) before they changed their patterns.
So I don't really think the time of use billing in smart meters will make an impact, mostly because politicians won't allow the cost of energy to swing that much throughout the day.That being said, what if it was all automatic and the smart meter could talk to the dishwasher and the AC and the fridge!
Show me ANY appliance that has a zigbee radio and a meter that it can talk to.
It is still all pie-in-the sky because these companies can't figure out how to work with eachother to get their products to interoperate.
We're still in a big power grab phase where people are pushing their own product to become the standard.Now what sensors and controls did you want to attach to transmission lines and distribution networks?
How are sensors going to allow transmission lines to handle more power?
what controls are we missing?Seems like to me like the grid operators and network operators already have more information than they can process with the thousands of points coming in from their scada systems.
As it is, grid operators have little information about real-time conditions on the grid and no control over demand.
With a smart grid, power could quickly be rerouted in response to increases and decreases in wind power.
Operators would know how hot transmission lines are getting, allowing them to decide with more accuracy how much power they can carry.
Also, consumers could program their homes to use less power during times of peak demand, reducing the need for new power plants.
What is real-time.
a recent article quotes 4s delay.
another said they could get 30 samples per second!
what good is that?
what good is the information if it arrives 4s sooner?
Operating a power system isn't  like a video game where a 4s difference in hitting a button matters.Operators already know how much power flows through any given circuit on the transmission network, right?!
All those CTs at every substation all feed into the SCADA system right?!
maybe they don't know the temperature of the line but they can guess pretty acurately by the load on it and the temperature of the day.
They have open/close control on every circuit.So here is a feature of the smart grid, power could quickly be rerouted.
there is some meat.
I wonder how this is achieved as controlling AC power flows is very difficult AFAIK, bu</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699609</id>
	<title>Re:just another bunch of Big Coal shills</title>
	<author>alispguru</author>
	<datestamp>1247588160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the Nth time - we can't arbitrarily replace current baseload power (coal/nuclear) with wind or PV solar(*) without a <b>major</b> technological advance in energy storage.  The current grid supports small-scale contributions from wind and solar only because they're small scale - a grid with more than a few percent of solar or wind would be so unstable as to be unusable without a lot of quick-starting, controllable generating capacity to jump on when the wind/sun fluctuates.  Today, that means natural gas or oil-fired systems.</p><p>A smart grid could theoretically solve this problem; note, however, that the problems are at least as hard as internet routing, and failures mean blackouts and fires/explosions - we are very unlikely to get it right the first time.</p><p>For a better view of the magnitude of the problem, look <a href="https://eed.llnl.gov/flow/02flow.php" title="llnl.gov">here</a> [llnl.gov].</p><p>(*)Thermal solar might work, with big enough heat sinks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the Nth time - we ca n't arbitrarily replace current baseload power ( coal/nuclear ) with wind or PV solar ( * ) without a major technological advance in energy storage .
The current grid supports small-scale contributions from wind and solar only because they 're small scale - a grid with more than a few percent of solar or wind would be so unstable as to be unusable without a lot of quick-starting , controllable generating capacity to jump on when the wind/sun fluctuates .
Today , that means natural gas or oil-fired systems.A smart grid could theoretically solve this problem ; note , however , that the problems are at least as hard as internet routing , and failures mean blackouts and fires/explosions - we are very unlikely to get it right the first time.For a better view of the magnitude of the problem , look here [ llnl.gov ] .
( * ) Thermal solar might work , with big enough heat sinks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the Nth time - we can't arbitrarily replace current baseload power (coal/nuclear) with wind or PV solar(*) without a major technological advance in energy storage.
The current grid supports small-scale contributions from wind and solar only because they're small scale - a grid with more than a few percent of solar or wind would be so unstable as to be unusable without a lot of quick-starting, controllable generating capacity to jump on when the wind/sun fluctuates.
Today, that means natural gas or oil-fired systems.A smart grid could theoretically solve this problem; note, however, that the problems are at least as hard as internet routing, and failures mean blackouts and fires/explosions - we are very unlikely to get it right the first time.For a better view of the magnitude of the problem, look here [llnl.gov].
(*)Thermal solar might work, with big enough heat sinks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698521</id>
	<title>Hack the weather is even bigger mistake</title>
	<author>kentsin</author>
	<datestamp>1247578980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>it is stupid</p><p>it is immortal</p><p>and it may be a self destruct</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>it is stupidit is immortaland it may be a self destruct</tokentext>
<sentencetext>it is stupidit is immortaland it may be a self destruct</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</id>
	<title>The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247572620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>every locale has magic electricity faeries just waiting to produce low-carbon-footprint electricity</p></div></blockquote><p>You're absolutely right, and that's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.</p><p>The problem with the large power grid is that power is generateed at a 60 Hz frequency. This corresponds to a 5000 km wavelength. A <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=quarter+wave+line" title="google.com">quarter wave line</a> [google.com] has a length of 1250 km (about 780 miles for the unit-challenged).</p><p>A quarter wavelength line has the property that a short circuit at one end appears as an open circuit at the other end and an open circuit appears at a short. This makes it very difficult to transmit 60 Hz power over a line of approximately that length, the line must be "impedance matched", by putting capacitors and/or inductors at several points along the line. Worse still, the line impedance varies with load, because when a higher current runs through the wires they heat up and, by dilation, lengthen and rest at a lower position, thereby increasing the capacitance to ground, which means those capacitors and inductors must be variable.</p><p>One solution is to use <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=hvdc" title="google.com">direct current</a> [google.com], but that's as expensive or more than matching the impedance, although the grid becomes easier to stabilize when direct current is used.</p><p>All in all, any solution for making more electricity available is expensive. Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically, but it seems, at least in the USA, very difficult for the people to accept.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>every locale has magic electricity faeries just waiting to produce low-carbon-footprint electricityYou 're absolutely right , and that 's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.The problem with the large power grid is that power is generateed at a 60 Hz frequency .
This corresponds to a 5000 km wavelength .
A quarter wave line [ google.com ] has a length of 1250 km ( about 780 miles for the unit-challenged ) .A quarter wavelength line has the property that a short circuit at one end appears as an open circuit at the other end and an open circuit appears at a short .
This makes it very difficult to transmit 60 Hz power over a line of approximately that length , the line must be " impedance matched " , by putting capacitors and/or inductors at several points along the line .
Worse still , the line impedance varies with load , because when a higher current runs through the wires they heat up and , by dilation , lengthen and rest at a lower position , thereby increasing the capacitance to ground , which means those capacitors and inductors must be variable.One solution is to use direct current [ google.com ] , but that 's as expensive or more than matching the impedance , although the grid becomes easier to stabilize when direct current is used.All in all , any solution for making more electricity available is expensive .
Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically , but it seems , at least in the USA , very difficult for the people to accept .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>every locale has magic electricity faeries just waiting to produce low-carbon-footprint electricityYou're absolutely right, and that's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.The problem with the large power grid is that power is generateed at a 60 Hz frequency.
This corresponds to a 5000 km wavelength.
A quarter wave line [google.com] has a length of 1250 km (about 780 miles for the unit-challenged).A quarter wavelength line has the property that a short circuit at one end appears as an open circuit at the other end and an open circuit appears at a short.
This makes it very difficult to transmit 60 Hz power over a line of approximately that length, the line must be "impedance matched", by putting capacitors and/or inductors at several points along the line.
Worse still, the line impedance varies with load, because when a higher current runs through the wires they heat up and, by dilation, lengthen and rest at a lower position, thereby increasing the capacitance to ground, which means those capacitors and inductors must be variable.One solution is to use direct current [google.com], but that's as expensive or more than matching the impedance, although the grid becomes easier to stabilize when direct current is used.All in all, any solution for making more electricity available is expensive.
Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically, but it seems, at least in the USA, very difficult for the people to accept.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698629</id>
	<title>Re:Carbon sequestering is all fine</title>
	<author>maxume</author>
	<datestamp>1247579700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Human generation is a bad joke compared to the amount of heat that the sun pumps into the earth on a continuous basis.</p><p>If the earth wasn't radiating all that heat away, the temperature would go up pretty fast (I mean day to day here, not year to year).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Human generation is a bad joke compared to the amount of heat that the sun pumps into the earth on a continuous basis.If the earth was n't radiating all that heat away , the temperature would go up pretty fast ( I mean day to day here , not year to year ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Human generation is a bad joke compared to the amount of heat that the sun pumps into the earth on a continuous basis.If the earth wasn't radiating all that heat away, the temperature would go up pretty fast (I mean day to day here, not year to year).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698025</id>
	<title>small nuclear powerplants</title>
	<author>FudRucker</author>
	<datestamp>1247575200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>make em small, enough to power a city and indestructible, tamper-proof, very low maintenance, who said power plants have to be HUGE monoliths, just think a nuclear power plant about the size of two shipping containers could manage an entire city or burrough, wind and solar is great but is not practical for everything...</htmltext>
<tokenext>make em small , enough to power a city and indestructible , tamper-proof , very low maintenance , who said power plants have to be HUGE monoliths , just think a nuclear power plant about the size of two shipping containers could manage an entire city or burrough , wind and solar is great but is not practical for everything.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>make em small, enough to power a city and indestructible, tamper-proof, very low maintenance, who said power plants have to be HUGE monoliths, just think a nuclear power plant about the size of two shipping containers could manage an entire city or burrough, wind and solar is great but is not practical for everything...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697689</id>
	<title>Galvin Electricity Initiative</title>
	<author>dtmos</author>
	<datestamp>1247572860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to mention the <a href="http://www.galvinpower.org/" title="galvinpower.org">Galvin Electricity Initiative</a> [galvinpower.org], from the family that founded Motorola.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to mention the Galvin Electricity Initiative [ galvinpower.org ] , from the family that founded Motorola .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to mention the Galvin Electricity Initiative [galvinpower.org], from the family that founded Motorola.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699699</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247588880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;According to the EIA, annual global electrical production comes to about 20 Terawatt-hours.<br>check your math, 20 TWh is annual production of one nuclear power station with four 1000 MW units (4 GW * 365 * 24h * 70\% ~ 24 TWh)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; According to the EIA , annual global electrical production comes to about 20 Terawatt-hours.check your math , 20 TWh is annual production of one nuclear power station with four 1000 MW units ( 4 GW * 365 * 24h * 70 \ % ~ 24 TWh )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;According to the EIA, annual global electrical production comes to about 20 Terawatt-hours.check your math, 20 TWh is annual production of one nuclear power station with four 1000 MW units (4 GW * 365 * 24h * 70\% ~ 24 TWh)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698125</id>
	<title>Changing technology</title>
	<author>steveha</author>
	<datestamp>1247575980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>He makes one interesting point: it would take a long time to build transmission lines that could carry large amounts of power all the way from the midwest to the northeast.  In that time, technology could improve in a way that could make the project pointless.</p><p>On the other hand, improving the existing grid from 1940's tech to modern tech is guaranteed to be worth doing.  (Is he correct that a major chunk of our existing grid is 1940's tech?)</p><p>On the subject of clean and decentralized power, how much longer before we get those solar roofing tiles that can contribute a useful amount of power?  Even if we didn't wait for the improved tiles, would today's solar tiles provide a useful increment of electricity to feed into the current grid?</p><p>He quotes a price of $60 billion to build the new transmission lines.  What would be the effect of using $60 billion to subsidize people to put solar tiles on top of existing buildings?  How about $60 billion worth of pebble-bed or similarly safe small reactors, each one in a piece of the grid?</p><p>I'm not an expert on any of this stuff, but I'm inclined to agree that this project sounds like a way to put a whole bunch of eggs into a single basket.  If we're going to do something big, let's try to make our electricity grid more decentralized, instead of adding one more frakking huge centralized source (however eco-clean).</p><p>steveha</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>He makes one interesting point : it would take a long time to build transmission lines that could carry large amounts of power all the way from the midwest to the northeast .
In that time , technology could improve in a way that could make the project pointless.On the other hand , improving the existing grid from 1940 's tech to modern tech is guaranteed to be worth doing .
( Is he correct that a major chunk of our existing grid is 1940 's tech ?
) On the subject of clean and decentralized power , how much longer before we get those solar roofing tiles that can contribute a useful amount of power ?
Even if we did n't wait for the improved tiles , would today 's solar tiles provide a useful increment of electricity to feed into the current grid ? He quotes a price of $ 60 billion to build the new transmission lines .
What would be the effect of using $ 60 billion to subsidize people to put solar tiles on top of existing buildings ?
How about $ 60 billion worth of pebble-bed or similarly safe small reactors , each one in a piece of the grid ? I 'm not an expert on any of this stuff , but I 'm inclined to agree that this project sounds like a way to put a whole bunch of eggs into a single basket .
If we 're going to do something big , let 's try to make our electricity grid more decentralized , instead of adding one more frakking huge centralized source ( however eco-clean ) .steveha</tokentext>
<sentencetext>He makes one interesting point: it would take a long time to build transmission lines that could carry large amounts of power all the way from the midwest to the northeast.
In that time, technology could improve in a way that could make the project pointless.On the other hand, improving the existing grid from 1940's tech to modern tech is guaranteed to be worth doing.
(Is he correct that a major chunk of our existing grid is 1940's tech?
)On the subject of clean and decentralized power, how much longer before we get those solar roofing tiles that can contribute a useful amount of power?
Even if we didn't wait for the improved tiles, would today's solar tiles provide a useful increment of electricity to feed into the current grid?He quotes a price of $60 billion to build the new transmission lines.
What would be the effect of using $60 billion to subsidize people to put solar tiles on top of existing buildings?
How about $60 billion worth of pebble-bed or similarly safe small reactors, each one in a piece of the grid?I'm not an expert on any of this stuff, but I'm inclined to agree that this project sounds like a way to put a whole bunch of eggs into a single basket.
If we're going to do something big, let's try to make our electricity grid more decentralized, instead of adding one more frakking huge centralized source (however eco-clean).steveha</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Chris Burke</author>
	<datestamp>1247572920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>All this talk about solar and wind energy being "free" and building these giant wind farms and turbines has had me wondering about something that I never see addressed.</i></p><p>Yeah it's only brought up in every single<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. discussion about wind power.</p><p><i>You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere, couldn't you end up with climate changes</i></p><p>Yes but what makes you think wind power could ever take a 'significant' chunk of energy out of the atmosphere?  A windmill only takes a tiny fraction of the energy out of the wind that moves through the area described by its rotation.  The wind passing through that area is a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere energy that passes over the windmill.  You could cover the earth with wind farms, and you'd be taking a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere's energy.  And up to a certain, very large, point it isn't even clear we'd be removing more energy than the trees that existed before industrial logging and agriculture cut them down.</p><p>Could it affect the climate?  Yes.  Is it a reason to worry?  No.</p><p><i>No energy is truly "free," after all. But environmentalists keep talking about wind and solar as if there's NO downside whatsoever.</i></p><p>Seriously, compared to what it is replacing, it is so close to zero impact as to be indistinguishable.  When every fossil fuel plant has been shut down, and when we're contemplating blanketing whole continents with wind/solar farms, that's when the impact of these technologies will be significant.  Then maybe we'll have to find a better solution, but hey thanks to getting rid of all the coal plants we should have plenty of time to do so.</p><p>I don't think any environmentalist would claim that they have literally <i>NO</i> impact, outside of this relative comparison where it is only hyperbole of the smallest order.  Yes, wind isn't "truly free".  No, that's not a reason to stop building wind farms as fast as possible, because "not free" isn't within orders of magnitude of "as costly as current power sources".  This concern is so far out there that it just reeks of grasping at straws.  The fact is that for today and the foreseeable future, the environmental benefit of wind farms is unequivocal and enormous.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this talk about solar and wind energy being " free " and building these giant wind farms and turbines has had me wondering about something that I never see addressed.Yeah it 's only brought up in every single / .
discussion about wind power.You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere , could n't you end up with climate changesYes but what makes you think wind power could ever take a 'significant ' chunk of energy out of the atmosphere ?
A windmill only takes a tiny fraction of the energy out of the wind that moves through the area described by its rotation .
The wind passing through that area is a tiny , tiny fraction of the atmosphere energy that passes over the windmill .
You could cover the earth with wind farms , and you 'd be taking a tiny , tiny fraction of the atmosphere 's energy .
And up to a certain , very large , point it is n't even clear we 'd be removing more energy than the trees that existed before industrial logging and agriculture cut them down.Could it affect the climate ?
Yes. Is it a reason to worry ?
No.No energy is truly " free , " after all .
But environmentalists keep talking about wind and solar as if there 's NO downside whatsoever.Seriously , compared to what it is replacing , it is so close to zero impact as to be indistinguishable .
When every fossil fuel plant has been shut down , and when we 're contemplating blanketing whole continents with wind/solar farms , that 's when the impact of these technologies will be significant .
Then maybe we 'll have to find a better solution , but hey thanks to getting rid of all the coal plants we should have plenty of time to do so.I do n't think any environmentalist would claim that they have literally NO impact , outside of this relative comparison where it is only hyperbole of the smallest order .
Yes , wind is n't " truly free " .
No , that 's not a reason to stop building wind farms as fast as possible , because " not free " is n't within orders of magnitude of " as costly as current power sources " .
This concern is so far out there that it just reeks of grasping at straws .
The fact is that for today and the foreseeable future , the environmental benefit of wind farms is unequivocal and enormous .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this talk about solar and wind energy being "free" and building these giant wind farms and turbines has had me wondering about something that I never see addressed.Yeah it's only brought up in every single /.
discussion about wind power.You start taking a significant chunk of that energy out of the atmosphere, couldn't you end up with climate changesYes but what makes you think wind power could ever take a 'significant' chunk of energy out of the atmosphere?
A windmill only takes a tiny fraction of the energy out of the wind that moves through the area described by its rotation.
The wind passing through that area is a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere energy that passes over the windmill.
You could cover the earth with wind farms, and you'd be taking a tiny, tiny fraction of the atmosphere's energy.
And up to a certain, very large, point it isn't even clear we'd be removing more energy than the trees that existed before industrial logging and agriculture cut them down.Could it affect the climate?
Yes.  Is it a reason to worry?
No.No energy is truly "free," after all.
But environmentalists keep talking about wind and solar as if there's NO downside whatsoever.Seriously, compared to what it is replacing, it is so close to zero impact as to be indistinguishable.
When every fossil fuel plant has been shut down, and when we're contemplating blanketing whole continents with wind/solar farms, that's when the impact of these technologies will be significant.
Then maybe we'll have to find a better solution, but hey thanks to getting rid of all the coal plants we should have plenty of time to do so.I don't think any environmentalist would claim that they have literally NO impact, outside of this relative comparison where it is only hyperbole of the smallest order.
Yes, wind isn't "truly free".
No, that's not a reason to stop building wind farms as fast as possible, because "not free" isn't within orders of magnitude of "as costly as current power sources".
This concern is so far out there that it just reeks of grasping at straws.
The fact is that for today and the foreseeable future, the environmental benefit of wind farms is unequivocal and enormous.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697657</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Paracelcus</author>
	<datestamp>1247572560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh, please! you're not serious? am I just not getting the joke?</p><p>Windmills changing weather patterns? does nobody ever pick up a science book!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh , please !
you 're not serious ?
am I just not getting the joke ? Windmills changing weather patterns ?
does nobody ever pick up a science book !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh, please!
you're not serious?
am I just not getting the joke?Windmills changing weather patterns?
does nobody ever pick up a science book!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701845</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>seaton carew</author>
	<datestamp>1247662440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. But nuclear is somewhat useless without a fairly large electricity transmission system. You've gotta get rid of all that energy somehow.</p><p>Nuclear plants are only happy working 100\% day and night. You can't just turn these things up &amp; down like a coal plant.</p><p>It's like the problem of managing wind power, only reversed...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
But nuclear is somewhat useless without a fairly large electricity transmission system .
You 've got ta get rid of all that energy somehow.Nuclear plants are only happy working 100 \ % day and night .
You ca n't just turn these things up &amp; down like a coal plant.It 's like the problem of managing wind power , only reversed.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
But nuclear is somewhat useless without a fairly large electricity transmission system.
You've gotta get rid of all that energy somehow.Nuclear plants are only happy working 100\% day and night.
You can't just turn these things up &amp; down like a coal plant.It's like the problem of managing wind power, only reversed...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699527</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247587140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(An average thunderstorm releases about 10 gigawatt-hours)</p></div><p>I beleive you mean jigga-watt kind sir.</p><p>Thank You<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( An average thunderstorm releases about 10 gigawatt-hours ) I beleive you mean jigga-watt kind sir.Thank You ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(An average thunderstorm releases about 10 gigawatt-hours)I beleive you mean jigga-watt kind sir.Thank You ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701003</id>
	<title>Re:NIF would require this</title>
	<author>moosesocks</author>
	<datestamp>1247649420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not 100\% current on the state of fusion research, although I do know that the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z\_machine" title="wikipedia.org">Z-Machine</a> [wikipedia.org] has delivered extremely promising results that could eventually be used for commercial power generation</p><p>The barriers to actually using Z-pinch for fusion power actually do seem to be surmountable in a relatively short period -- ITER is unproven and appallingly expensive, while there are quite a few scientific questions that NIF will need to provide the answers to before we can even start thinking about commercializing laser-confined fusion.</p><p>On the other hand, we know that the Z-machine can produce the temperatures necessary to produce fusion, and more or less simply need a way to continuously feed it fuel, while harvesting the energy produced by the fusion reaction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not 100 \ % current on the state of fusion research , although I do know that the Z-Machine [ wikipedia.org ] has delivered extremely promising results that could eventually be used for commercial power generationThe barriers to actually using Z-pinch for fusion power actually do seem to be surmountable in a relatively short period -- ITER is unproven and appallingly expensive , while there are quite a few scientific questions that NIF will need to provide the answers to before we can even start thinking about commercializing laser-confined fusion.On the other hand , we know that the Z-machine can produce the temperatures necessary to produce fusion , and more or less simply need a way to continuously feed it fuel , while harvesting the energy produced by the fusion reaction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not 100\% current on the state of fusion research, although I do know that the Z-Machine [wikipedia.org] has delivered extremely promising results that could eventually be used for commercial power generationThe barriers to actually using Z-pinch for fusion power actually do seem to be surmountable in a relatively short period -- ITER is unproven and appallingly expensive, while there are quite a few scientific questions that NIF will need to provide the answers to before we can even start thinking about commercializing laser-confined fusion.On the other hand, we know that the Z-machine can produce the temperatures necessary to produce fusion, and more or less simply need a way to continuously feed it fuel, while harvesting the energy produced by the fusion reaction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697729</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697865</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Ambitwistor</author>
	<datestamp>1247574060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There have  been some studies, for example <a href="http://www.pnas.org/content/101/46/16115.abstract" title="pnas.org">"The influence of large-scale wind power on global climate"</a> [pnas.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There have been some studies , for example " The influence of large-scale wind power on global climate " [ pnas.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There have  been some studies, for example "The influence of large-scale wind power on global climate" [pnas.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697495</id>
	<title>Two Words</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247571480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nuclear Power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear Power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear Power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28709279</id>
	<title>nuclear power</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247656800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>there is one extremely low carbon footprint <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear\_power" title="wikipedia.org">technology</a> [wikipedia.org] that we know works and scales well. Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the "renewables" that we've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.....</i></p><p>Except nuclear power is not scalable.  I can't install one on my roof or in my basement.  Nor is it only those who want "renewables" who oppose it.  Freemarket and business proponents also oppose it.  The Freemarket CATO institute republished the Forbes article "<a href="http://www.cato.org/pub\_display.php?pub\_id=8792" title="cato.org">Hooked on Subsidies</a> [cato.org]" explaining why "Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power."  Quite simply without massive subsides nuclear is not profitable and Wall Street would not fund it.  Even in nations that do not have the regulations the US does nuclear power is not profitable.  As TFA says:</p><p>"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants? They don't. Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built. Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors."</p><p>Oh but I suppose you and or others will say CATO and Forbes are really environmental organizations that oppose nuclear power.  Or maybe Finland will be cited, saying nuclear power is profitable there.  However "After four years of construction and thousands of recorded defects and deficiencies, the price tag on the reactor in , has climbed at least 50 percent."  And "<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8138869.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland</a> [bbc.co.uk]"  What's more is that the company building it is Areva and is owned by the French government.</p><p>

Falcon</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there is one extremely low carbon footprint technology [ wikipedia.org ] that we know works and scales well .
Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the " renewables " that we 've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.....Except nuclear power is not scalable .
I ca n't install one on my roof or in my basement .
Nor is it only those who want " renewables " who oppose it .
Freemarket and business proponents also oppose it .
The Freemarket CATO institute republished the Forbes article " Hooked on Subsidies [ cato.org ] " explaining why " Why conservatives should join the left 's campaign against nuclear power .
" Quite simply without massive subsides nuclear is not profitable and Wall Street would not fund it .
Even in nations that do not have the regulations the US does nuclear power is not profitable .
As TFA says : " How do France ( and India , China and Russia ) build cost-effective nuclear power plants ?
They do n't .
Governmental officials in those countries , not private investors , decide what is built .
Nuclear power appeals to state planners , not market actors .
" Oh but I suppose you and or others will say CATO and Forbes are really environmental organizations that oppose nuclear power .
Or maybe Finland will be cited , saying nuclear power is profitable there .
However " After four years of construction and thousands of recorded defects and deficiencies , the price tag on the reactor in , has climbed at least 50 percent .
" And " Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland [ bbc.co.uk ] " What 's more is that the company building it is Areva and is owned by the French government .
Falcon</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there is one extremely low carbon footprint technology [wikipedia.org] that we know works and scales well.
Too bad the people who oppose it do so without offering any real alternative besides the "renewables" that we've been waiting decades for or the prospect of a lower standard of living.....Except nuclear power is not scalable.
I can't install one on my roof or in my basement.
Nor is it only those who want "renewables" who oppose it.
Freemarket and business proponents also oppose it.
The Freemarket CATO institute republished the Forbes article "Hooked on Subsidies [cato.org]" explaining why "Why conservatives should join the left's campaign against nuclear power.
"  Quite simply without massive subsides nuclear is not profitable and Wall Street would not fund it.
Even in nations that do not have the regulations the US does nuclear power is not profitable.
As TFA says:"How do France (and India, China and Russia) build cost-effective nuclear power plants?
They don't.
Governmental officials in those countries, not private investors, decide what is built.
Nuclear power appeals to state planners, not market actors.
"Oh but I suppose you and or others will say CATO and Forbes are really environmental organizations that oppose nuclear power.
Or maybe Finland will be cited, saying nuclear power is profitable there.
However "After four years of construction and thousands of recorded defects and deficiencies, the price tag on the reactor in , has climbed at least 50 percent.
"  And "Nuclear dawn delayed in Finland [bbc.co.uk]"  What's more is that the company building it is Areva and is owned by the French government.
Falcon</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697851</id>
	<title>district energy</title>
	<author>robinesque</author>
	<datestamp>1247574000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. District energy is the future! It's wasteful to push electrons down miles of wire, and if the owners are local then they have a vested interest in making sure the district energy system is efficient and nice to live around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
District energy is the future !
It 's wasteful to push electrons down miles of wire , and if the owners are local then they have a vested interest in making sure the district energy system is efficient and nice to live around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
District energy is the future!
It's wasteful to push electrons down miles of wire, and if the owners are local then they have a vested interest in making sure the district energy system is efficient and nice to live around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703543</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>oblivionboy</author>
	<datestamp>1247673000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're an anonymous coward, so you probably won't even come back to see this, but never mind that, I'll reply anyways.</p><p>So let me guess you're a scientist, and most probably a physicist, and of course a massive nuclear energy deployment would keep all of you employed and out of having to sit around your mom's basement after you did your PhD and post doc and realized -- oops, gee aside from teaching college curriculum, there's not actually that much out there for you.</p><p>I'm not against nuclear. Far from it. I would have no problems if a nuclear plant were deployed near my city or even my home, assuming I thought the design and overseeing body was competent enough. But at the same time, the "nuclear" people seem so much like any other cult, blind and one sided. Engineering has shown us one thing: it gets better at doing things over time. So let the solar develop into better solar, the wind develop into better wind, geothermal into better geothermal, electricity grids into better electricity grids. At the end of the day, what you "nuclear" people refuse to admit, is that most like our energy future will be a mixed source affair, with energy coming from many different places. Happily for you, physicists will be employed at some of them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're an anonymous coward , so you probably wo n't even come back to see this , but never mind that , I 'll reply anyways.So let me guess you 're a scientist , and most probably a physicist , and of course a massive nuclear energy deployment would keep all of you employed and out of having to sit around your mom 's basement after you did your PhD and post doc and realized -- oops , gee aside from teaching college curriculum , there 's not actually that much out there for you.I 'm not against nuclear .
Far from it .
I would have no problems if a nuclear plant were deployed near my city or even my home , assuming I thought the design and overseeing body was competent enough .
But at the same time , the " nuclear " people seem so much like any other cult , blind and one sided .
Engineering has shown us one thing : it gets better at doing things over time .
So let the solar develop into better solar , the wind develop into better wind , geothermal into better geothermal , electricity grids into better electricity grids .
At the end of the day , what you " nuclear " people refuse to admit , is that most like our energy future will be a mixed source affair , with energy coming from many different places .
Happily for you , physicists will be employed at some of them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're an anonymous coward, so you probably won't even come back to see this, but never mind that, I'll reply anyways.So let me guess you're a scientist, and most probably a physicist, and of course a massive nuclear energy deployment would keep all of you employed and out of having to sit around your mom's basement after you did your PhD and post doc and realized -- oops, gee aside from teaching college curriculum, there's not actually that much out there for you.I'm not against nuclear.
Far from it.
I would have no problems if a nuclear plant were deployed near my city or even my home, assuming I thought the design and overseeing body was competent enough.
But at the same time, the "nuclear" people seem so much like any other cult, blind and one sided.
Engineering has shown us one thing: it gets better at doing things over time.
So let the solar develop into better solar, the wind develop into better wind, geothermal into better geothermal, electricity grids into better electricity grids.
At the end of the day, what you "nuclear" people refuse to admit, is that most like our energy future will be a mixed source affair, with energy coming from many different places.
Happily for you, physicists will be employed at some of them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697727</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Tanktalus</author>
	<datestamp>1247573100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about pumping pollution into the air, too.  The volume of pollution pumped out of factories vs the volume of the atmosphere, it'd never be significant.  What do you know - as more people started jumping on the bandwagon, new technology found new ways to pump out pollution.  If we invest heavily in wind farms, new technology will come along to extract more energy in less land footprint.</p><p>And who says what "significant" is?  Maybe the amount of energy available is barely over the cusp of self-sustainability, and extracting a couple hundred MW* completely ruins the jet stream, plunging us into droughts and famines the likes we've never seen?  Or maybe the extraction of minor amounts of energy destabilises the jet stream such that it causes hurricanes in places that would never otherwise see them?  Who knows?  How can we know?  Of course, maybe we have to be taking out huge amounts of energy to make that difference - we don't know that, either.  (It's probably somewhere around 1.21 jiggawatts...)  The question to me isn't whether we should or not (we should), it's what do we do to fix it if we do take too much out?  If you think pumping out too much CO2 is bad, this has potential for much worse.  Then again, it might be nothing.  Can't tell.</p><p>* yes, W, not J.  The sun is replenishing the energy in our atmosphere, so I'm assuming here that you have to take out energy above and beyond the energy added to the ecosystem by the sun <i>on a continual basis</i> to effect any change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm pretty sure they said the same thing about pumping pollution into the air , too .
The volume of pollution pumped out of factories vs the volume of the atmosphere , it 'd never be significant .
What do you know - as more people started jumping on the bandwagon , new technology found new ways to pump out pollution .
If we invest heavily in wind farms , new technology will come along to extract more energy in less land footprint.And who says what " significant " is ?
Maybe the amount of energy available is barely over the cusp of self-sustainability , and extracting a couple hundred MW * completely ruins the jet stream , plunging us into droughts and famines the likes we 've never seen ?
Or maybe the extraction of minor amounts of energy destabilises the jet stream such that it causes hurricanes in places that would never otherwise see them ?
Who knows ?
How can we know ?
Of course , maybe we have to be taking out huge amounts of energy to make that difference - we do n't know that , either .
( It 's probably somewhere around 1.21 jiggawatts... ) The question to me is n't whether we should or not ( we should ) , it 's what do we do to fix it if we do take too much out ?
If you think pumping out too much CO2 is bad , this has potential for much worse .
Then again , it might be nothing .
Ca n't tell .
* yes , W , not J. The sun is replenishing the energy in our atmosphere , so I 'm assuming here that you have to take out energy above and beyond the energy added to the ecosystem by the sun on a continual basis to effect any change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm pretty sure they said the same thing about pumping pollution into the air, too.
The volume of pollution pumped out of factories vs the volume of the atmosphere, it'd never be significant.
What do you know - as more people started jumping on the bandwagon, new technology found new ways to pump out pollution.
If we invest heavily in wind farms, new technology will come along to extract more energy in less land footprint.And who says what "significant" is?
Maybe the amount of energy available is barely over the cusp of self-sustainability, and extracting a couple hundred MW* completely ruins the jet stream, plunging us into droughts and famines the likes we've never seen?
Or maybe the extraction of minor amounts of energy destabilises the jet stream such that it causes hurricanes in places that would never otherwise see them?
Who knows?
How can we know?
Of course, maybe we have to be taking out huge amounts of energy to make that difference - we don't know that, either.
(It's probably somewhere around 1.21 jiggawatts...)  The question to me isn't whether we should or not (we should), it's what do we do to fix it if we do take too much out?
If you think pumping out too much CO2 is bad, this has potential for much worse.
Then again, it might be nothing.
Can't tell.
* yes, W, not J.  The sun is replenishing the energy in our atmosphere, so I'm assuming here that you have to take out energy above and beyond the energy added to the ecosystem by the sun on a continual basis to effect any change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699953</id>
	<title>until you count mining and disposal,</title>
	<author>bstender</author>
	<datestamp>1247591280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>carbon, NEG or toxicity, when suddenly it isnt all that...and the fuel is also not limitless.</htmltext>
<tokenext>carbon , NEG or toxicity , when suddenly it isnt all that...and the fuel is also not limitless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>carbon, NEG or toxicity, when suddenly it isnt all that...and the fuel is also not limitless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697347</id>
	<title>Central Generation</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247570880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The CBI in the UK has been <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8146824.stm" title="bbc.co.uk">railing against our governments focus on wind power as well</a> [bbc.co.uk].</p><p>They were also keen on carbon-capture and also nuclear.</p><p>It's funny how big corporate interests are not so keen on projects where any little group of people could afford their own small-scale generation capacity. Although I could be talking through my tinfoil hat.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The CBI in the UK has been railing against our governments focus on wind power as well [ bbc.co.uk ] .They were also keen on carbon-capture and also nuclear.It 's funny how big corporate interests are not so keen on projects where any little group of people could afford their own small-scale generation capacity .
Although I could be talking through my tinfoil hat .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The CBI in the UK has been railing against our governments focus on wind power as well [bbc.co.uk].They were also keen on carbon-capture and also nuclear.It's funny how big corporate interests are not so keen on projects where any little group of people could afford their own small-scale generation capacity.
Although I could be talking through my tinfoil hat.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28710605</id>
	<title>transmission grid</title>
	<author>falconwolf</author>
	<datestamp>1247663640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>You're absolutely right, and that's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.</i></p><p>A new smart grid is needed whether nuclear is used to generate the power or other methods are used.  At least using a mix of different energy sources, geothermal, solar, tidal, or wind where appropriate can mitigate it.  A national grid can transmit power from where it's being produced in abundance to where it's needed.</p><p><i>The problem with the large power grid is that power is generateed at a 60 Hz frequency.</i></p><p>Not all electricity is produced at 60 Hz.  Heck not all is produced as AC, solar PVs produce DC.  And over long distances transmitting power via HVDC, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage\_direct\_current" title="wikipedia.org">High-voltage direct current</a> [wikipedia.org] there is less power loss that AC.  Thomas Edison's electric company originally <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas\_Edison#War\_of\_currents" title="wikipedia.org">delivered DC power</a> [wikipedia.org].  He got into a war of currents with Tesla when Tesla pushed for AC power.  He went so far as to cruelly execute <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topsy\_(elephant)" title="wikipedia.org">Topsy the elephant</a> [wikipedia.org] with DC.</p><p>Oh, I see you mention using DC.</p><p><i>All in all, any solution for making more electricity available is expensive. Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically, but it seems, at least in the USA, very difficult for the people to accept.</i></p><p>Agreed!  Both with conservation being cheaper and with getting Americans to conserve being hard.  One possible solution would be to tax emissions then give ratepayers a refund.  Say, if the tax raises the average ratepayer's power bill $100 a month then they receive a $100 refund a month.  They can then use the money to improve efficiency.  The more energy they save the more money in their pockets.</p><p>Falcon</p><p>

Notice I didn't say I like or approve of the proposal, all I'm doing here is making it.  Maybe others can share problems with this one or their own proposal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely right , and that 's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.A new smart grid is needed whether nuclear is used to generate the power or other methods are used .
At least using a mix of different energy sources , geothermal , solar , tidal , or wind where appropriate can mitigate it .
A national grid can transmit power from where it 's being produced in abundance to where it 's needed.The problem with the large power grid is that power is generateed at a 60 Hz frequency.Not all electricity is produced at 60 Hz .
Heck not all is produced as AC , solar PVs produce DC .
And over long distances transmitting power via HVDC , High-voltage direct current [ wikipedia.org ] there is less power loss that AC .
Thomas Edison 's electric company originally delivered DC power [ wikipedia.org ] .
He got into a war of currents with Tesla when Tesla pushed for AC power .
He went so far as to cruelly execute Topsy the elephant [ wikipedia.org ] with DC.Oh , I see you mention using DC.All in all , any solution for making more electricity available is expensive .
Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically , but it seems , at least in the USA , very difficult for the people to accept.Agreed !
Both with conservation being cheaper and with getting Americans to conserve being hard .
One possible solution would be to tax emissions then give ratepayers a refund .
Say , if the tax raises the average ratepayer 's power bill $ 100 a month then they receive a $ 100 refund a month .
They can then use the money to improve efficiency .
The more energy they save the more money in their pockets.Falcon Notice I did n't say I like or approve of the proposal , all I 'm doing here is making it .
Maybe others can share problems with this one or their own proposal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely right, and that's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.A new smart grid is needed whether nuclear is used to generate the power or other methods are used.
At least using a mix of different energy sources, geothermal, solar, tidal, or wind where appropriate can mitigate it.
A national grid can transmit power from where it's being produced in abundance to where it's needed.The problem with the large power grid is that power is generateed at a 60 Hz frequency.Not all electricity is produced at 60 Hz.
Heck not all is produced as AC, solar PVs produce DC.
And over long distances transmitting power via HVDC, High-voltage direct current [wikipedia.org] there is less power loss that AC.
Thomas Edison's electric company originally delivered DC power [wikipedia.org].
He got into a war of currents with Tesla when Tesla pushed for AC power.
He went so far as to cruelly execute Topsy the elephant [wikipedia.org] with DC.Oh, I see you mention using DC.All in all, any solution for making more electricity available is expensive.
Conservation is the easiest and cheaper way to implement technically, but it seems, at least in the USA, very difficult for the people to accept.Agreed!
Both with conservation being cheaper and with getting Americans to conserve being hard.
One possible solution would be to tax emissions then give ratepayers a refund.
Say, if the tax raises the average ratepayer's power bill $100 a month then they receive a $100 refund a month.
They can then use the money to improve efficiency.
The more energy they save the more money in their pockets.Falcon

Notice I didn't say I like or approve of the proposal, all I'm doing here is making it.
Maybe others can share problems with this one or their own proposal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697805</id>
	<title>Re:Smart Grid</title>
	<author>MC2000</author>
	<datestamp>1247573640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cool, I had never even heard of anything like this before the last week.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cool , I had never even heard of anything like this before the last week .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cool, I had never even heard of anything like this before the last week.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697517</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697829</id>
	<title>Re:local power - yes, carbon capture - no ?</title>
	<author>astar</author>
	<datestamp>1247573760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The extra electrical transmission capability is so the speculators who jacked up the electrical cost not too long ago can continue to operate and do it again more effectively.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The extra electrical transmission capability is so the speculators who jacked up the electrical cost not too long ago can continue to operate and do it again more effectively .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The extra electrical transmission capability is so the speculators who jacked up the electrical cost not too long ago can continue to operate and do it again more effectively.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699203</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We need to triple the number of Nuke reactors we have right now.</p><p>We don't need new sites as much as we need more reactors.</p><p>Uranium and Plutonium have quite a bit O'Energy in those obese atoms.  Crackin' em is the only way to satisfy both our techno thirst and our carbon conscience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We need to triple the number of Nuke reactors we have right now.We do n't need new sites as much as we need more reactors.Uranium and Plutonium have quite a bit O'Energy in those obese atoms .
Crackin ' em is the only way to satisfy both our techno thirst and our carbon conscience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need to triple the number of Nuke reactors we have right now.We don't need new sites as much as we need more reactors.Uranium and Plutonium have quite a bit O'Energy in those obese atoms.
Crackin' em is the only way to satisfy both our techno thirst and our carbon conscience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697289</id>
	<title>Carbon sequestering is all fine</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247570520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But the last time I checked, energy cannot be created or destroyed - it can only change form. It all ends up as thermal (see heat death of the universe), so surely it'd be a better idea to convert it from renewable sources (wind, solar, etc.) than adding to it from chemical sources. Yes, IAAP (physicist).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But the last time I checked , energy can not be created or destroyed - it can only change form .
It all ends up as thermal ( see heat death of the universe ) , so surely it 'd be a better idea to convert it from renewable sources ( wind , solar , etc .
) than adding to it from chemical sources .
Yes , IAAP ( physicist ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But the last time I checked, energy cannot be created or destroyed - it can only change form.
It all ends up as thermal (see heat death of the universe), so surely it'd be a better idea to convert it from renewable sources (wind, solar, etc.
) than adding to it from chemical sources.
Yes, IAAP (physicist).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28707695</id>
	<title>Please don't "build wind farms as fast as possible</title>
	<author>GPS Pilot</author>
	<datestamp>1247649360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The reason we shouldn't "build wind farms as fast as possible" is that they don't provide a good return on investment.  And when capital is diverted from a high-return project into a lower-return project, the unemployment rate <a href="http://www.juandemariana.org/pdf/090327-employment-public-aid-renewable.pdf" title="juandemariana.org">becomes higher than it otherwise would be</a> [juandemariana.org].  Mindless devotion to everything "green" has consequences: human beings who become more impoverished, and more dependent on coercive transfers of wealth!</p><p>As the cost of manufacturing wind turbines decreases, a wind farm's return on investment increases.  So sure, we should periodically re-evaluate the feasibility of these projects, and proceed <i>when it makes sense to do so.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The reason we should n't " build wind farms as fast as possible " is that they do n't provide a good return on investment .
And when capital is diverted from a high-return project into a lower-return project , the unemployment rate becomes higher than it otherwise would be [ juandemariana.org ] .
Mindless devotion to everything " green " has consequences : human beings who become more impoverished , and more dependent on coercive transfers of wealth ! As the cost of manufacturing wind turbines decreases , a wind farm 's return on investment increases .
So sure , we should periodically re-evaluate the feasibility of these projects , and proceed when it makes sense to do so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The reason we shouldn't "build wind farms as fast as possible" is that they don't provide a good return on investment.
And when capital is diverted from a high-return project into a lower-return project, the unemployment rate becomes higher than it otherwise would be [juandemariana.org].
Mindless devotion to everything "green" has consequences: human beings who become more impoverished, and more dependent on coercive transfers of wealth!As the cost of manufacturing wind turbines decreases, a wind farm's return on investment increases.
So sure, we should periodically re-evaluate the feasibility of these projects, and proceed when it makes sense to do so.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698593</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>aaarrrgggh</author>
	<datestamp>1247579400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Conservation is an important part of the equation, but unfortunately GDP Growth correlates pretty closely to energy consumption growth.  There is always low-hanging fruit, but that really doesn't represent the majority of energy consumption by any means.</p><p>For an old industrial facility that was built in the 60's and never upgraded, we can do a few things to drop demand and total energy consumption by 25-30\%, but those are fairly rare.  Most of the time, you are lucky to find a system that you can improve by more than 10\% without major process changes.</p><p>Additional generation capacity is needed, and one of the easiest ways to recover it is by taking advantage of the time lag between the coasts on peak demand.  If nothing else, it helps improve spinning reserve for the overall grid.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Conservation is an important part of the equation , but unfortunately GDP Growth correlates pretty closely to energy consumption growth .
There is always low-hanging fruit , but that really does n't represent the majority of energy consumption by any means.For an old industrial facility that was built in the 60 's and never upgraded , we can do a few things to drop demand and total energy consumption by 25-30 \ % , but those are fairly rare .
Most of the time , you are lucky to find a system that you can improve by more than 10 \ % without major process changes.Additional generation capacity is needed , and one of the easiest ways to recover it is by taking advantage of the time lag between the coasts on peak demand .
If nothing else , it helps improve spinning reserve for the overall grid .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Conservation is an important part of the equation, but unfortunately GDP Growth correlates pretty closely to energy consumption growth.
There is always low-hanging fruit, but that really doesn't represent the majority of energy consumption by any means.For an old industrial facility that was built in the 60's and never upgraded, we can do a few things to drop demand and total energy consumption by 25-30\%, but those are fairly rare.
Most of the time, you are lucky to find a system that you can improve by more than 10\% without major process changes.Additional generation capacity is needed, and one of the easiest ways to recover it is by taking advantage of the time lag between the coasts on peak demand.
If nothing else, it helps improve spinning reserve for the overall grid.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704173</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>Life2Death</author>
	<datestamp>1247676720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not build them out in the middle of nowhere like...like...canada? or washington or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not build them out in the middle of nowhere like...like...canada ?
or washington or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not build them out in the middle of nowhere like...like...canada?
or washington or something?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697985</id>
	<title>carbon capture = how long can you hold your breath</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247574840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How soon before you have a Lake Nios effect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How soon before you have a Lake Nios effect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How soon before you have a Lake Nios effect?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700853</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1247689680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>the environmental benefit of wind farms is unequivocal and enormous.</p></div><p>The environment doesn't matter.  What really matters is: how will people's lives be affected.</p><p>If energy prices rise, making people less happy and life less enjoyable, while simultaneously devastating businesses that depend on cheap energy, then your central-planning will be a disaster.</p><p>Carbon energy is already abundant and cheap, there is no need to tinker with the economy to try and change what everyone is doing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>the environmental benefit of wind farms is unequivocal and enormous.The environment does n't matter .
What really matters is : how will people 's lives be affected.If energy prices rise , making people less happy and life less enjoyable , while simultaneously devastating businesses that depend on cheap energy , then your central-planning will be a disaster.Carbon energy is already abundant and cheap , there is no need to tinker with the economy to try and change what everyone is doing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the environmental benefit of wind farms is unequivocal and enormous.The environment doesn't matter.
What really matters is: how will people's lives be affected.If energy prices rise, making people less happy and life less enjoyable, while simultaneously devastating businesses that depend on cheap energy, then your central-planning will be a disaster.Carbon energy is already abundant and cheap, there is no need to tinker with the economy to try and change what everyone is doing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699811</id>
	<title>Re:Changing technology</title>
	<author>Alien7</author>
	<datestamp>1247589840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>we could easily use reflective satellite dishes on our roofs to focus the sun's energy to small steam generators...it uses the simple technology of radiant heat instead of trying to catch falling photons and you wouldn't have to transmit the electricity more than a few meters.  It's also much cheaper to produce and would create a lot of manufacturing jobs that you could hope to keep local...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>we could easily use reflective satellite dishes on our roofs to focus the sun 's energy to small steam generators...it uses the simple technology of radiant heat instead of trying to catch falling photons and you would n't have to transmit the electricity more than a few meters .
It 's also much cheaper to produce and would create a lot of manufacturing jobs that you could hope to keep local.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>we could easily use reflective satellite dishes on our roofs to focus the sun's energy to small steam generators...it uses the simple technology of radiant heat instead of trying to catch falling photons and you wouldn't have to transmit the electricity more than a few meters.
It's also much cheaper to produce and would create a lot of manufacturing jobs that you could hope to keep local...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699167</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247584380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And yet Bill Gates thinks he can neutralize a hurricane just by pumping some water around:</p><p>http://gizmodo.com/5312045/bill-gates-patent-could-save-us-from-another-hurricane-katrina</p><p>Methinks someone's understanding of the energy densities involved is, well, a little dense...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And yet Bill Gates thinks he can neutralize a hurricane just by pumping some water around : http : //gizmodo.com/5312045/bill-gates-patent-could-save-us-from-another-hurricane-katrinaMethinks someone 's understanding of the energy densities involved is , well , a little dense.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And yet Bill Gates thinks he can neutralize a hurricane just by pumping some water around:http://gizmodo.com/5312045/bill-gates-patent-could-save-us-from-another-hurricane-katrinaMethinks someone's understanding of the energy densities involved is, well, a little dense...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697939</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247574540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But look at the size of the windmill farms if they were to generate ALL of our power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But look at the size of the windmill farms if they were to generate ALL of our power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But look at the size of the windmill farms if they were to generate ALL of our power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697369</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699551</id>
	<title>Re:small nuclear powerplants</title>
	<author>dbIII</author>
	<datestamp>1247587500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Nuclear power is a thermal energy solution and like all thermal energy solutions give you the best returns at very large scales.  Small nuclear reactors are pointless expensive things unless you want to power a submarine.<br>Nuclear advocates should at least learn the basics about what they are advocating before they rail at the rest of us about what they half remember or imagine.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Nuclear power is a thermal energy solution and like all thermal energy solutions give you the best returns at very large scales .
Small nuclear reactors are pointless expensive things unless you want to power a submarine.Nuclear advocates should at least learn the basics about what they are advocating before they rail at the rest of us about what they half remember or imagine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nuclear power is a thermal energy solution and like all thermal energy solutions give you the best returns at very large scales.
Small nuclear reactors are pointless expensive things unless you want to power a submarine.Nuclear advocates should at least learn the basics about what they are advocating before they rail at the rest of us about what they half remember or imagine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701961</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>KGBear</author>
	<datestamp>1247663820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You are wrong. There are practical limits to how much people we can make if we stay on the same planet. We may be close or very far from the theoretical limit, but it gets very uncomfortable long before we approach the limit. The \_only\_ result of ever-increasing population is the lowering of the standard of living for everybody. It will not be at the same pace for everybody, of course, but it will affect everybody given time. For instance, increasing poverty in Mexico leads to more desperation to poor Mexicans, who tend to become illegal immigrants in this country. So you see how your standard of living may be affected by economic problems in another country.<br> <br>
We \_must\_ control our population growth.<br>
We \_must\_ lower the demand on resources.<br>
This seems very difficult for conservatives to understand.<br>
<br>
<br>
The lessons of evolution are clear (that seems to be very difficult for conservatives to understand also). Either we stop growing at these rates or we will be stopped by scarcity of resources, increase of diseases or catastrophic wars.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong .
There are practical limits to how much people we can make if we stay on the same planet .
We may be close or very far from the theoretical limit , but it gets very uncomfortable long before we approach the limit .
The \ _only \ _ result of ever-increasing population is the lowering of the standard of living for everybody .
It will not be at the same pace for everybody , of course , but it will affect everybody given time .
For instance , increasing poverty in Mexico leads to more desperation to poor Mexicans , who tend to become illegal immigrants in this country .
So you see how your standard of living may be affected by economic problems in another country .
We \ _must \ _ control our population growth .
We \ _must \ _ lower the demand on resources .
This seems very difficult for conservatives to understand .
The lessons of evolution are clear ( that seems to be very difficult for conservatives to understand also ) .
Either we stop growing at these rates or we will be stopped by scarcity of resources , increase of diseases or catastrophic wars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong.
There are practical limits to how much people we can make if we stay on the same planet.
We may be close or very far from the theoretical limit, but it gets very uncomfortable long before we approach the limit.
The \_only\_ result of ever-increasing population is the lowering of the standard of living for everybody.
It will not be at the same pace for everybody, of course, but it will affect everybody given time.
For instance, increasing poverty in Mexico leads to more desperation to poor Mexicans, who tend to become illegal immigrants in this country.
So you see how your standard of living may be affected by economic problems in another country.
We \_must\_ control our population growth.
We \_must\_ lower the demand on resources.
This seems very difficult for conservatives to understand.
The lessons of evolution are clear (that seems to be very difficult for conservatives to understand also).
Either we stop growing at these rates or we will be stopped by scarcity of resources, increase of diseases or catastrophic wars.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697949</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>geekoid</author>
	<datestamp>1247574660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>", the line must be "impedance matched""</p><p>of dear lord, we could never do that~</p><p>We should be using Industrial Solar Thermal.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" , the line must be " impedance matched " " of dear lord , we could never do that ~ We should be using Industrial Solar Thermal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>", the line must be "impedance matched""of dear lord, we could never do that~We should be using Industrial Solar Thermal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698081</id>
	<title>Actually, I wish they WOULD delay it</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1247575680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would be better to focus on doing the local network while pushing research on Superconductor. Once we have superconducting wire, then it becomes much easier to move electricity around.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would be better to focus on doing the local network while pushing research on Superconductor .
Once we have superconducting wire , then it becomes much easier to move electricity around .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would be better to focus on doing the local network while pushing research on Superconductor.
Once we have superconducting wire, then it becomes much easier to move electricity around.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702643</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>intheshelter</author>
	<datestamp>1247668260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you don't have a real answer to the question then why do you waste everyone's time with your stupid off topic post?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you do n't have a real answer to the question then why do you waste everyone 's time with your stupid off topic post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you don't have a real answer to the question then why do you waste everyone's time with your stupid off topic post?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697349</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28705011</id>
	<title>Not to mention the fact...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247680800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... that no one has any idea whether the "sequestered" CO2 actually stays out of circulation for any length of time. It seems likely that the first earth tremor in the area of the "sequestration" site would cause an enormous CO2 belch, as new cracks form and let out the stored gas.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... that no one has any idea whether the " sequestered " CO2 actually stays out of circulation for any length of time .
It seems likely that the first earth tremor in the area of the " sequestration " site would cause an enormous CO2 belch , as new cracks form and let out the stored gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... that no one has any idea whether the "sequestered" CO2 actually stays out of circulation for any length of time.
It seems likely that the first earth tremor in the area of the "sequestration" site would cause an enormous CO2 belch, as new cracks form and let out the stored gas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697873</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28731973</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>sjames</author>
	<datestamp>1247854500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We should go with DC anyway. Even if the initial cost is higher, not having to maintain active capacitor and inductor banks along the line should make up for it over time. The added stability is a big (and needed) plus. It's bad enough when a cascading failure pulls the north east down, we don't need an incident to black the entire country out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We should go with DC anyway .
Even if the initial cost is higher , not having to maintain active capacitor and inductor banks along the line should make up for it over time .
The added stability is a big ( and needed ) plus .
It 's bad enough when a cascading failure pulls the north east down , we do n't need an incident to black the entire country out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We should go with DC anyway.
Even if the initial cost is higher, not having to maintain active capacitor and inductor banks along the line should make up for it over time.
The added stability is a big (and needed) plus.
It's bad enough when a cascading failure pulls the north east down, we don't need an incident to black the entire country out.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697563</id>
	<title>With to days grid all it takes is a homer Simpson</title>
	<author>Joe The Dragon</author>
	<datestamp>1247571900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With to days grid all it takes is a homer Simpson to mess it up.</p><p>There was that time he spilled food all over his control board and took out new york.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With to days grid all it takes is a homer Simpson to mess it up.There was that time he spilled food all over his control board and took out new york .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With to days grid all it takes is a homer Simpson to mess it up.There was that time he spilled food all over his control board and took out new york.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698977</id>
	<title>Re:Changing technology</title>
	<author>Firethorn</author>
	<datestamp>1247582760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think he's missing the biggest reason for these interconnect power lines.</p><p>You see, the vast majority of our electricity is generated from 'on demand' sources.  IE excepted unanticipated breakdowns, you want power, you get power.  You have the ability to schedule at least short down times around periods of lower demand.  With wind, it's not the individual turbine you have to worry about, otherwise you'd simply overbuild the wind farm to take the relatively horrible If it wasn't for this, you could simply overbuild to correct for the relative capacity factor (90\% for nuclear).  If we go towards generating a significant fraction of our power from wind/solar, we won't have the option of just placing wind turbines/solar cells in optimal locations.<br>But whole regions won't be producing power at the same time, or producing power when there's relatively little demand.</p><p>More energy storage systems that can avoid using electricity during high demand/low supply times like electric cars or electric fed water tank heating/cooling(IE you heat/cool the water, then use it to heat/cool the house/building) will help, but won't be enough.</p><p>Thus, there will be times when (for example) Nevada wind farms are under performing but North Dakota ones are operating at capacity.  Right now, that power is likely to be wasted.  With a massive interconnect system, Nevada can buy from Idaho, Idaho can buy from Montana, Montana from North Dakota.</p><p>In addition, the bigger effective size we can get our interconnected system, the more stable our power demand and supply will be.  Rather then having a spike at 0500-0700 when people start getting up and making their coffee, the spike will start at 0500 East Coast time, ending 0700 Pacific, or 1100 Eastern, just in time for lunch to start.  Much more even.  Heck, East coast solar can supply early morning electricity for lighting to the West coast, and vice versa in the evening.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think he 's missing the biggest reason for these interconnect power lines.You see , the vast majority of our electricity is generated from 'on demand ' sources .
IE excepted unanticipated breakdowns , you want power , you get power .
You have the ability to schedule at least short down times around periods of lower demand .
With wind , it 's not the individual turbine you have to worry about , otherwise you 'd simply overbuild the wind farm to take the relatively horrible If it was n't for this , you could simply overbuild to correct for the relative capacity factor ( 90 \ % for nuclear ) .
If we go towards generating a significant fraction of our power from wind/solar , we wo n't have the option of just placing wind turbines/solar cells in optimal locations.But whole regions wo n't be producing power at the same time , or producing power when there 's relatively little demand.More energy storage systems that can avoid using electricity during high demand/low supply times like electric cars or electric fed water tank heating/cooling ( IE you heat/cool the water , then use it to heat/cool the house/building ) will help , but wo n't be enough.Thus , there will be times when ( for example ) Nevada wind farms are under performing but North Dakota ones are operating at capacity .
Right now , that power is likely to be wasted .
With a massive interconnect system , Nevada can buy from Idaho , Idaho can buy from Montana , Montana from North Dakota.In addition , the bigger effective size we can get our interconnected system , the more stable our power demand and supply will be .
Rather then having a spike at 0500-0700 when people start getting up and making their coffee , the spike will start at 0500 East Coast time , ending 0700 Pacific , or 1100 Eastern , just in time for lunch to start .
Much more even .
Heck , East coast solar can supply early morning electricity for lighting to the West coast , and vice versa in the evening .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think he's missing the biggest reason for these interconnect power lines.You see, the vast majority of our electricity is generated from 'on demand' sources.
IE excepted unanticipated breakdowns, you want power, you get power.
You have the ability to schedule at least short down times around periods of lower demand.
With wind, it's not the individual turbine you have to worry about, otherwise you'd simply overbuild the wind farm to take the relatively horrible If it wasn't for this, you could simply overbuild to correct for the relative capacity factor (90\% for nuclear).
If we go towards generating a significant fraction of our power from wind/solar, we won't have the option of just placing wind turbines/solar cells in optimal locations.But whole regions won't be producing power at the same time, or producing power when there's relatively little demand.More energy storage systems that can avoid using electricity during high demand/low supply times like electric cars or electric fed water tank heating/cooling(IE you heat/cool the water, then use it to heat/cool the house/building) will help, but won't be enough.Thus, there will be times when (for example) Nevada wind farms are under performing but North Dakota ones are operating at capacity.
Right now, that power is likely to be wasted.
With a massive interconnect system, Nevada can buy from Idaho, Idaho can buy from Montana, Montana from North Dakota.In addition, the bigger effective size we can get our interconnected system, the more stable our power demand and supply will be.
Rather then having a spike at 0500-0700 when people start getting up and making their coffee, the spike will start at 0500 East Coast time, ending 0700 Pacific, or 1100 Eastern, just in time for lunch to start.
Much more even.
Heck, East coast solar can supply early morning electricity for lighting to the West coast, and vice versa in the evening.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698509</id>
	<title>Re:small nuclear powerplants</title>
	<author>poptix@work</author>
	<datestamp>1247578860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think this is what you're looking for: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba\_4S" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba\_4S</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Toshiba isn't the only company working on this either: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion\_Power\_Generation" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion\_Power\_Generation</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this is what you 're looking for : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba \ _4S [ wikipedia.org ] Toshiba is n't the only company working on this either : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion \ _Power \ _Generation [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this is what you're looking for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toshiba\_4S [wikipedia.org]Toshiba isn't the only company working on this either: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperion\_Power\_Generation [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698025</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697681</id>
	<title>Penny wise $billions foolish</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247572740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We keep going after the same model over and over again.

Search
Finster's Law: A closed mouth gathers no feet.

Big conglomerates produce and consumers buy. They get to set the rates and raise prices when they can come up with an excuse (weather, maintenance, etc) and commodities traders can bet on the spot prices. It's an old and broken model that benefits corporations while sapping money from consumers.

With all the billions they keep mentioning wouldn't it be nice if someone had a clue and said:

"if we give people a big enough incentive to use renewable sources at their business, home, government offices, etc we would not need more expensive transmission lines"

Instead of wasting OUR tax dollars on supporting a broken model let's support a self sufficient model. We give tax incentives to homeowners, landlords, apartment owners, builders, etc to incorporate solar, wind, geothermal, etc into the actual buildings. Schools and local governments can get grants to become producers of energy (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) and sell excess to the business next door or the house down the street. With schools being closed during peek hours of daylight, there is a lot of potential. Government buildings can be retrofitted to be energy neutral or even produce excess (considering they work 9-5 there is a lot of potential to produce excess energy after hours in the southern sunny states) for the local community. In high demand hours a local message to clean energy buildings can ask them to reduce their own usage to increase output to the grid. The smart grid that is needed is updating local utilities to buy excess from anyone who provides clean energy. not what some utilities do, offset your own usage but anything extra they get for free.

Germany started a solar revolution by allowing anyone that wanted to install solar to get a set price for 20 years. after the 20 year period imagine what their energy costs will be, from the highest in the region to possibly the lowest. Farmers are installing solar arrays and getting additional income, banks are financing the installations, over a million jobs created from the solar industry. Other countries are starting to see the long term potential of getting off this energy roller coaster.

<a href="http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/solar-incentives-could-ontario-be-the-next-germany" title="renewableenergyworld.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/solar-incentives-could-ontario-be-the-next-germany</a> [renewableenergyworld.com]

It's OUR tax dollars they are using so let's put it to use in the right location, our local towns, schools, grocery stores, government buildings, libraries etc and not to support antiquated models fo they produce and we consume.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We keep going after the same model over and over again .
Search Finster 's Law : A closed mouth gathers no feet .
Big conglomerates produce and consumers buy .
They get to set the rates and raise prices when they can come up with an excuse ( weather , maintenance , etc ) and commodities traders can bet on the spot prices .
It 's an old and broken model that benefits corporations while sapping money from consumers .
With all the billions they keep mentioning would n't it be nice if someone had a clue and said : " if we give people a big enough incentive to use renewable sources at their business , home , government offices , etc we would not need more expensive transmission lines " Instead of wasting OUR tax dollars on supporting a broken model let 's support a self sufficient model .
We give tax incentives to homeowners , landlords , apartment owners , builders , etc to incorporate solar , wind , geothermal , etc into the actual buildings .
Schools and local governments can get grants to become producers of energy ( solar , wind , geothermal , etc ) and sell excess to the business next door or the house down the street .
With schools being closed during peek hours of daylight , there is a lot of potential .
Government buildings can be retrofitted to be energy neutral or even produce excess ( considering they work 9-5 there is a lot of potential to produce excess energy after hours in the southern sunny states ) for the local community .
In high demand hours a local message to clean energy buildings can ask them to reduce their own usage to increase output to the grid .
The smart grid that is needed is updating local utilities to buy excess from anyone who provides clean energy .
not what some utilities do , offset your own usage but anything extra they get for free .
Germany started a solar revolution by allowing anyone that wanted to install solar to get a set price for 20 years .
after the 20 year period imagine what their energy costs will be , from the highest in the region to possibly the lowest .
Farmers are installing solar arrays and getting additional income , banks are financing the installations , over a million jobs created from the solar industry .
Other countries are starting to see the long term potential of getting off this energy roller coaster .
http : //www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/solar-incentives-could-ontario-be-the-next-germany [ renewableenergyworld.com ] It 's OUR tax dollars they are using so let 's put it to use in the right location , our local towns , schools , grocery stores , government buildings , libraries etc and not to support antiquated models fo they produce and we consume .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We keep going after the same model over and over again.
Search
Finster's Law: A closed mouth gathers no feet.
Big conglomerates produce and consumers buy.
They get to set the rates and raise prices when they can come up with an excuse (weather, maintenance, etc) and commodities traders can bet on the spot prices.
It's an old and broken model that benefits corporations while sapping money from consumers.
With all the billions they keep mentioning wouldn't it be nice if someone had a clue and said:

"if we give people a big enough incentive to use renewable sources at their business, home, government offices, etc we would not need more expensive transmission lines"

Instead of wasting OUR tax dollars on supporting a broken model let's support a self sufficient model.
We give tax incentives to homeowners, landlords, apartment owners, builders, etc to incorporate solar, wind, geothermal, etc into the actual buildings.
Schools and local governments can get grants to become producers of energy (solar, wind, geothermal, etc) and sell excess to the business next door or the house down the street.
With schools being closed during peek hours of daylight, there is a lot of potential.
Government buildings can be retrofitted to be energy neutral or even produce excess (considering they work 9-5 there is a lot of potential to produce excess energy after hours in the southern sunny states) for the local community.
In high demand hours a local message to clean energy buildings can ask them to reduce their own usage to increase output to the grid.
The smart grid that is needed is updating local utilities to buy excess from anyone who provides clean energy.
not what some utilities do, offset your own usage but anything extra they get for free.
Germany started a solar revolution by allowing anyone that wanted to install solar to get a set price for 20 years.
after the 20 year period imagine what their energy costs will be, from the highest in the region to possibly the lowest.
Farmers are installing solar arrays and getting additional income, banks are financing the installations, over a million jobs created from the solar industry.
Other countries are starting to see the long term potential of getting off this energy roller coaster.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2009/04/solar-incentives-could-ontario-be-the-next-germany [renewableenergyworld.com]

It's OUR tax dollars they are using so let's put it to use in the right location, our local towns, schools, grocery stores, government buildings, libraries etc and not to support antiquated models fo they produce and we consume.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702291</id>
	<title>Re:Nuclear!</title>
	<author>that IT girl</author>
	<datestamp>1247666220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Including new-kyoo-lurr.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Including new-kyoo-lurr .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Including new-kyoo-lurr.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700275</id>
	<title>Smart Grid Is a Dumb Idea</title>
	<author>rssrss</author>
	<datestamp>1247594700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The whole smart grid idea gives me the willies. First, it will be used an excuse to block the building of generating capacity of any type. All electric generators have an environmental downside. The existence of a "smart" grid will be another excuse to not boost generating capacity. If the wind mills don't produce electricity, so what? we will just turn off your computer. Problem solved.</p><p>Second, the smart grid is a new avenue for government intrusion into our lives. Members of "minority" groups will claim that any action to cut power to their neighborhoods is racism. Power cuts to the districts of Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Barney Frank will be rarer than hen's teeth. Don't bother to buy a new refrigerator if you live in John Boehner's district.</p><p>Non-union factories won't get electricity, but Government Motors and Fiatsler will have all they need. But wait, there is more. Too fat? No electricity for your kitchen. Want to stay up late. Sorry, lights are out at 10 p.m. in this town.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The whole smart grid idea gives me the willies .
First , it will be used an excuse to block the building of generating capacity of any type .
All electric generators have an environmental downside .
The existence of a " smart " grid will be another excuse to not boost generating capacity .
If the wind mills do n't produce electricity , so what ?
we will just turn off your computer .
Problem solved.Second , the smart grid is a new avenue for government intrusion into our lives .
Members of " minority " groups will claim that any action to cut power to their neighborhoods is racism .
Power cuts to the districts of Nancy Pelosi , John Murtha and Barney Frank will be rarer than hen 's teeth .
Do n't bother to buy a new refrigerator if you live in John Boehner 's district.Non-union factories wo n't get electricity , but Government Motors and Fiatsler will have all they need .
But wait , there is more .
Too fat ?
No electricity for your kitchen .
Want to stay up late .
Sorry , lights are out at 10 p.m. in this town .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The whole smart grid idea gives me the willies.
First, it will be used an excuse to block the building of generating capacity of any type.
All electric generators have an environmental downside.
The existence of a "smart" grid will be another excuse to not boost generating capacity.
If the wind mills don't produce electricity, so what?
we will just turn off your computer.
Problem solved.Second, the smart grid is a new avenue for government intrusion into our lives.
Members of "minority" groups will claim that any action to cut power to their neighborhoods is racism.
Power cuts to the districts of Nancy Pelosi, John Murtha and Barney Frank will be rarer than hen's teeth.
Don't bother to buy a new refrigerator if you live in John Boehner's district.Non-union factories won't get electricity, but Government Motors and Fiatsler will have all they need.
But wait, there is more.
Too fat?
No electricity for your kitchen.
Want to stay up late.
Sorry, lights are out at 10 p.m. in this town.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701443</id>
	<title>Re:Central Generation</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1247656860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yep. Your tin-foil hat is a little tight.<br><br>I work for a large power generator in the UK. We'd really like people to have CHP units in their homes. We'd really like them to have solar panels on their roofs. Wind turbines: we want to people to have those too.<br><br>We also want to sell these units, install them and get our customers to sign up for maintenance agreements. All for a nice profit, of course.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yep .
Your tin-foil hat is a little tight.I work for a large power generator in the UK .
We 'd really like people to have CHP units in their homes .
We 'd really like them to have solar panels on their roofs .
Wind turbines : we want to people to have those too.We also want to sell these units , install them and get our customers to sign up for maintenance agreements .
All for a nice profit , of course .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yep.
Your tin-foil hat is a little tight.I work for a large power generator in the UK.
We'd really like people to have CHP units in their homes.
We'd really like them to have solar panels on their roofs.
Wind turbines: we want to people to have those too.We also want to sell these units, install them and get our customers to sign up for maintenance agreements.
All for a nice profit, of course.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697347</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697691</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247572860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Melting ice caps will redistribute water to the equator due to angular momentum. But because energy is conserved, the earth will spin slower (think of when you extend and retract limbs as you spin in an office chair). The rough calculation I saw said we could expect our days to be a few microseconds longer if all the ice melted.</p><p>So what's worse?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Melting ice caps will redistribute water to the equator due to angular momentum .
But because energy is conserved , the earth will spin slower ( think of when you extend and retract limbs as you spin in an office chair ) .
The rough calculation I saw said we could expect our days to be a few microseconds longer if all the ice melted.So what 's worse ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Melting ice caps will redistribute water to the equator due to angular momentum.
But because energy is conserved, the earth will spin slower (think of when you extend and retract limbs as you spin in an office chair).
The rough calculation I saw said we could expect our days to be a few microseconds longer if all the ice melted.So what's worse?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700621</id>
	<title>Re:Changing technology</title>
	<author>Renraku</author>
	<datestamp>1247598900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, the power grid was thought up by very intelligent people.</p><p>I'm honestly surprised that it hasn't required a complete overhaul yet.</p><p>The system of regional and local power plants is a great one.  A power plant for every couple of cities.  The issue we're facing is that we're simply not producing enough power locally in quite a few areas.  The solution?  Pipe the power in, as the good engineers had already designed the system for!  The problem?  We're piping in so much power that the chances of a catastrophic failure of the national power grid is becoming more and more likely.</p><p>We're overstressing the lines, the switching stations, and the plants.</p><p>The solution is simple, but costly.</p><p>First, we need to generate more electricity.  This can be done through efficiency upgrades, new plants, or distributed generation.  I'm putting my money on modular nuclear reactors, like B&amp;W's mPower.  That would alleviate the immediate local demand for electricity.</p><p>Second, we need to upgrade the infrastructure to handle more power and to be more efficient.  This includes possible use of high voltage DC lines (aka HVDC), superconductors, and the usual incremental upgrades to switching stations.</p><p>Third, we need to start an initiative to get people to save more power.  A lot of power is wasted by companies that keep their PCs on and running 3dpipes all night, people keeping their houses at a balmy 64F during the summer when they're away on vacation, and products that waste a noticeable amount of power when turned off and idle.</p><p>When we do all of those things, then we can be ready for electric cars, replicators, and all of that other stuff that you had seen on Beyond 2000 or Star Trek.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , the power grid was thought up by very intelligent people.I 'm honestly surprised that it has n't required a complete overhaul yet.The system of regional and local power plants is a great one .
A power plant for every couple of cities .
The issue we 're facing is that we 're simply not producing enough power locally in quite a few areas .
The solution ?
Pipe the power in , as the good engineers had already designed the system for !
The problem ?
We 're piping in so much power that the chances of a catastrophic failure of the national power grid is becoming more and more likely.We 're overstressing the lines , the switching stations , and the plants.The solution is simple , but costly.First , we need to generate more electricity .
This can be done through efficiency upgrades , new plants , or distributed generation .
I 'm putting my money on modular nuclear reactors , like B&amp;W 's mPower .
That would alleviate the immediate local demand for electricity.Second , we need to upgrade the infrastructure to handle more power and to be more efficient .
This includes possible use of high voltage DC lines ( aka HVDC ) , superconductors , and the usual incremental upgrades to switching stations.Third , we need to start an initiative to get people to save more power .
A lot of power is wasted by companies that keep their PCs on and running 3dpipes all night , people keeping their houses at a balmy 64F during the summer when they 're away on vacation , and products that waste a noticeable amount of power when turned off and idle.When we do all of those things , then we can be ready for electric cars , replicators , and all of that other stuff that you had seen on Beyond 2000 or Star Trek .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, the power grid was thought up by very intelligent people.I'm honestly surprised that it hasn't required a complete overhaul yet.The system of regional and local power plants is a great one.
A power plant for every couple of cities.
The issue we're facing is that we're simply not producing enough power locally in quite a few areas.
The solution?
Pipe the power in, as the good engineers had already designed the system for!
The problem?
We're piping in so much power that the chances of a catastrophic failure of the national power grid is becoming more and more likely.We're overstressing the lines, the switching stations, and the plants.The solution is simple, but costly.First, we need to generate more electricity.
This can be done through efficiency upgrades, new plants, or distributed generation.
I'm putting my money on modular nuclear reactors, like B&amp;W's mPower.
That would alleviate the immediate local demand for electricity.Second, we need to upgrade the infrastructure to handle more power and to be more efficient.
This includes possible use of high voltage DC lines (aka HVDC), superconductors, and the usual incremental upgrades to switching stations.Third, we need to start an initiative to get people to save more power.
A lot of power is wasted by companies that keep their PCs on and running 3dpipes all night, people keeping their houses at a balmy 64F during the summer when they're away on vacation, and products that waste a noticeable amount of power when turned off and idle.When we do all of those things, then we can be ready for electric cars, replicators, and all of that other stuff that you had seen on Beyond 2000 or Star Trek.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698125</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700239</id>
	<title>AC / DC distinction irrelevant to the article</title>
	<author>JimToo</author>
	<datestamp>1247594280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Both high voltage AC and high voltage DC lines would work in terms of reinforcing the network. This is not where the criticism presented in the article is aimed at. It's borrowing off an idea poorly expressed in Hot Flat and Stupid in a book by Thomas Friedman that there should be smart "green" electrons. This totally fails to address a key point about electricity and network security which is the point at which the network passes from 100.000\% load to 100.001\% load<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... something you all experienced a few years ago when the US power system went DARK. An overloaded electricity system does clog up and gently reduce capacity like - say - you local water supply. IT JUST TURNS OFF and the cascade effect takes down the rest of the network.

The very real benefit of a strong network is that once you have it in place, then you can put your green energy into it. And parking photovoltaics on your house, calling the power green and ignoring the mining and energy costs associated with building them is not *really* green, just *feel good* green.

[/rant]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Both high voltage AC and high voltage DC lines would work in terms of reinforcing the network .
This is not where the criticism presented in the article is aimed at .
It 's borrowing off an idea poorly expressed in Hot Flat and Stupid in a book by Thomas Friedman that there should be smart " green " electrons .
This totally fails to address a key point about electricity and network security which is the point at which the network passes from 100.000 \ % load to 100.001 \ % load ... something you all experienced a few years ago when the US power system went DARK .
An overloaded electricity system does clog up and gently reduce capacity like - say - you local water supply .
IT JUST TURNS OFF and the cascade effect takes down the rest of the network .
The very real benefit of a strong network is that once you have it in place , then you can put your green energy into it .
And parking photovoltaics on your house , calling the power green and ignoring the mining and energy costs associated with building them is not * really * green , just * feel good * green .
[ /rant ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Both high voltage AC and high voltage DC lines would work in terms of reinforcing the network.
This is not where the criticism presented in the article is aimed at.
It's borrowing off an idea poorly expressed in Hot Flat and Stupid in a book by Thomas Friedman that there should be smart "green" electrons.
This totally fails to address a key point about electricity and network security which is the point at which the network passes from 100.000\% load to 100.001\% load ... something you all experienced a few years ago when the US power system went DARK.
An overloaded electricity system does clog up and gently reduce capacity like - say - you local water supply.
IT JUST TURNS OFF and the cascade effect takes down the rest of the network.
The very real benefit of a strong network is that once you have it in place, then you can put your green energy into it.
And parking photovoltaics on your house, calling the power green and ignoring the mining and energy costs associated with building them is not *really* green, just *feel good* green.
[/rant]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700767</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>The\_Quinn</author>
	<datestamp>1247688000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>You're absolutely right, and that's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.</p></div><p>Wrong.  Two billion people in the world don't have electricity.  Carbon-based sources produce the most, and cheapest energy.  Carbon-based sources are responsible for the doubling of human life expectancy.</p><p>It's time to forget about environmental propaganda and start being concerned with the lives of individuals who need abundant, cheap energy to survive, and to thrive.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're absolutely right , and that 's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.Wrong .
Two billion people in the world do n't have electricity .
Carbon-based sources produce the most , and cheapest energy .
Carbon-based sources are responsible for the doubling of human life expectancy.It 's time to forget about environmental propaganda and start being concerned with the lives of individuals who need abundant , cheap energy to survive , and to thrive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're absolutely right, and that's why we need either nuclear power or a large power transmission grid to lower CO2 emissions.Wrong.
Two billion people in the world don't have electricity.
Carbon-based sources produce the most, and cheapest energy.
Carbon-based sources are responsible for the doubling of human life expectancy.It's time to forget about environmental propaganda and start being concerned with the lives of individuals who need abundant, cheap energy to survive, and to thrive.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697435</id>
	<title>Ok, so I'm supposed to believe...</title>
	<author>hAckz0r</author>
	<datestamp>1247571240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ok, so I'm supposed to believe that Alfred P. Sloan, <b>someone that made a VAST FORTUNE off of technology that burns oil</b>, is going to like us NOT burning oil? Who would have ever thought that...<p>

<a href="http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alfred\_P.\_Sloan,\_Jr." title="newworldencyclopedia.org">http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alfred\_P.\_Sloan,\_Jr.</a> [newworldencyclopedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , so I 'm supposed to believe that Alfred P. Sloan , someone that made a VAST FORTUNE off of technology that burns oil , is going to like us NOT burning oil ?
Who would have ever thought that.. . http : //www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alfred \ _P. \ _Sloan , \ _Jr. [ newworldencyclopedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, so I'm supposed to believe that Alfred P. Sloan, someone that made a VAST FORTUNE off of technology that burns oil, is going to like us NOT burning oil?
Who would have ever thought that...

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Alfred\_P.\_Sloan,\_Jr. [newworldencyclopedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703057</id>
	<title>Re:The quarter wave problem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247670420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>There will \_always\_ be more people.</i> </p><p>Please read up on fertility rates and the concept of replacement rate, e.g. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement\_fertility" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">here</a> [wikipedia.org].  Many parts of the world, specifically the wealthy (high-resource-consumption) parts of the world, are currently below replacement rates.</p><p> <i>There will \_always\_ be greater demand for resources.</i> </p><p>There are plenty of trends out there which point in the opposite direction.  For example, the correlation between increased wealth and decreasing birth rate (as nations get richer and individuals consume more they tend to have fewer children).  Eating less/no meat (vegetarianism) is becoming more popular.  Recycling (reusing the same pool of resources) is becoming more common and as commodity prices rise due to scarcity, hopefully it will become more economically viable too.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p><p> <i>This seems very difficult for conservationists to understand.</i> </p><p>Ha.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There will \ _always \ _ be more people .
Please read up on fertility rates and the concept of replacement rate , e.g .
here [ wikipedia.org ] .
Many parts of the world , specifically the wealthy ( high-resource-consumption ) parts of the world , are currently below replacement rates .
There will \ _always \ _ be greater demand for resources .
There are plenty of trends out there which point in the opposite direction .
For example , the correlation between increased wealth and decreasing birth rate ( as nations get richer and individuals consume more they tend to have fewer children ) .
Eating less/no meat ( vegetarianism ) is becoming more popular .
Recycling ( reusing the same pool of resources ) is becoming more common and as commodity prices rise due to scarcity , hopefully it will become more economically viable too .
: ) This seems very difficult for conservationists to understand .
Ha .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> There will \_always\_ be more people.
Please read up on fertility rates and the concept of replacement rate, e.g.
here [wikipedia.org].
Many parts of the world, specifically the wealthy (high-resource-consumption) parts of the world, are currently below replacement rates.
There will \_always\_ be greater demand for resources.
There are plenty of trends out there which point in the opposite direction.
For example, the correlation between increased wealth and decreasing birth rate (as nations get richer and individuals consume more they tend to have fewer children).
Eating less/no meat (vegetarianism) is becoming more popular.
Recycling (reusing the same pool of resources) is becoming more common and as commodity prices rise due to scarcity, hopefully it will become more economically viable too.
:) This seems very difficult for conservationists to understand.
Ha.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697871</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247574120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember reading in some science book that the average hurricane consumes ~100 of the original atomic bomb in energy every minute. I wouldn't think wind farms would cut much into the total wind power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember reading in some science book that the average hurricane consumes ~ 100 of the original atomic bomb in energy every minute .
I would n't think wind farms would cut much into the total wind power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember reading in some science book that the average hurricane consumes ~100 of the original atomic bomb in energy every minute.
I wouldn't think wind farms would cut much into the total wind power.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703495</id>
	<title>Keep it local</title>
	<author>foniksonik</author>
	<datestamp>1247672640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If the midwest can support large windfarms, great... then manufacturing and other heavy industry that have high energy requirements can move there for cheap energy. Why is anyone even considering transmitting it to the coastal regions...</p><p>The coastal regions have tidal power available to them or offshore wind farms. Yes these are likely more expensive, but also less expensive than current power generation (in TCO terms) and should be enough to power residential and non-manufacturing industries.</p><p>My overall point is that each region has access to 'green' power sources but with varying levels of total potential. Economies and populations can and will adapt to the available resources as they always have. Look at the locations Google and Apple and others are choosing for their large datacenters... locations that have the cheapest energy costs due to local sources of sustainable power generation (hydro, etc). This will continue and adapt to things like windfarms, large solar arrays (whether Stirling or not), tidal...  There is no need to invest in large transmission networks or infrastructure. Just allow the distribution of cheap energy to affect the distribution of cheap industry and a balance will be achieved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If the midwest can support large windfarms , great... then manufacturing and other heavy industry that have high energy requirements can move there for cheap energy .
Why is anyone even considering transmitting it to the coastal regions...The coastal regions have tidal power available to them or offshore wind farms .
Yes these are likely more expensive , but also less expensive than current power generation ( in TCO terms ) and should be enough to power residential and non-manufacturing industries.My overall point is that each region has access to 'green ' power sources but with varying levels of total potential .
Economies and populations can and will adapt to the available resources as they always have .
Look at the locations Google and Apple and others are choosing for their large datacenters... locations that have the cheapest energy costs due to local sources of sustainable power generation ( hydro , etc ) .
This will continue and adapt to things like windfarms , large solar arrays ( whether Stirling or not ) , tidal... There is no need to invest in large transmission networks or infrastructure .
Just allow the distribution of cheap energy to affect the distribution of cheap industry and a balance will be achieved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If the midwest can support large windfarms, great... then manufacturing and other heavy industry that have high energy requirements can move there for cheap energy.
Why is anyone even considering transmitting it to the coastal regions...The coastal regions have tidal power available to them or offshore wind farms.
Yes these are likely more expensive, but also less expensive than current power generation (in TCO terms) and should be enough to power residential and non-manufacturing industries.My overall point is that each region has access to 'green' power sources but with varying levels of total potential.
Economies and populations can and will adapt to the available resources as they always have.
Look at the locations Google and Apple and others are choosing for their large datacenters... locations that have the cheapest energy costs due to local sources of sustainable power generation (hydro, etc).
This will continue and adapt to things like windfarms, large solar arrays (whether Stirling or not), tidal...  There is no need to invest in large transmission networks or infrastructure.
Just allow the distribution of cheap energy to affect the distribution of cheap industry and a balance will be achieved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702889</id>
	<title>Re:Yeah</title>
	<author>tgd</author>
	<datestamp>1247669400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And those people probably live closer to them then they think.</p><p>The number of reactors out there is vastly higher than the number generating electricity. A good number of universities have them, for example...</p><p>MIT's is in the middle of a residential area of Cambridge, MA and has been for decades.</p><p>Two kinds of people are scared of them -- morons, and the uneducated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And those people probably live closer to them then they think.The number of reactors out there is vastly higher than the number generating electricity .
A good number of universities have them , for example...MIT 's is in the middle of a residential area of Cambridge , MA and has been for decades.Two kinds of people are scared of them -- morons , and the uneducated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And those people probably live closer to them then they think.The number of reactors out there is vastly higher than the number generating electricity.
A good number of universities have them, for example...MIT's is in the middle of a residential area of Cambridge, MA and has been for decades.Two kinds of people are scared of them -- morons, and the uneducated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699787</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698981</id>
	<title>Re:Problem with wind and solar?</title>
	<author>PitaBred</author>
	<datestamp>1247582820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Industrial logging and agriculture is also <a href="http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi\_0199-2102539/Good-news-is-that-bad.html" title="ecnext.com">replacing them</a> [ecnext.com] at a rapid rate. The trees used for the wood in your home are typically fast-growing and planted deliberately in farms, and replanted after harvest. There's concern about losing unique habitat such as in many rainforests, but the raw number of trees is in no way threatened.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Industrial logging and agriculture is also replacing them [ ecnext.com ] at a rapid rate .
The trees used for the wood in your home are typically fast-growing and planted deliberately in farms , and replanted after harvest .
There 's concern about losing unique habitat such as in many rainforests , but the raw number of trees is in no way threatened .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Industrial logging and agriculture is also replacing them [ecnext.com] at a rapid rate.
The trees used for the wood in your home are typically fast-growing and planted deliberately in farms, and replanted after harvest.
There's concern about losing unique habitat such as in many rainforests, but the raw number of trees is in no way threatened.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703669</id>
	<title>Re:Smart Grid Is a Dumb Idea</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1247673840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why not bury the coal and burn ammonia instead? With proper catalyst the output would be only nitrogen and water.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not bury the coal and burn ammonia instead ?
With proper catalyst the output would be only nitrogen and water .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not bury the coal and burn ammonia instead?
With proper catalyst the output would be only nitrogen and water.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700275</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699399</id>
	<title>The monopoly problem</title>
	<author>Zarlan</author>
	<datestamp>1247586420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not saying this is a certain danger but it is a significant one, local energy companies are more likely to be able to set up monopolies - where they charge consumers WAY beyond what it costs them to produce the energy - than their larger multi-locality counterparts.

In large part because they are more successful in arguing that they are meeting specific market conditions or are additionally hampered by costs others in the industry don't face. This argument fails more often with larger companies because they are forced to charge a relatively level price across all regions and are more tightly regulated by Federal and State agencies.

In any solution to the electrical problem, it would be nice to see some sort of price constraints set on big utilities and small ones forcing them to stop using regulatory agencies to provide indirect subsidies.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not saying this is a certain danger but it is a significant one , local energy companies are more likely to be able to set up monopolies - where they charge consumers WAY beyond what it costs them to produce the energy - than their larger multi-locality counterparts .
In large part because they are more successful in arguing that they are meeting specific market conditions or are additionally hampered by costs others in the industry do n't face .
This argument fails more often with larger companies because they are forced to charge a relatively level price across all regions and are more tightly regulated by Federal and State agencies .
In any solution to the electrical problem , it would be nice to see some sort of price constraints set on big utilities and small ones forcing them to stop using regulatory agencies to provide indirect subsidies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not saying this is a certain danger but it is a significant one, local energy companies are more likely to be able to set up monopolies - where they charge consumers WAY beyond what it costs them to produce the energy - than their larger multi-locality counterparts.
In large part because they are more successful in arguing that they are meeting specific market conditions or are additionally hampered by costs others in the industry don't face.
This argument fails more often with larger companies because they are forced to charge a relatively level price across all regions and are more tightly regulated by Federal and State agencies.
In any solution to the electrical problem, it would be nice to see some sort of price constraints set on big utilities and small ones forcing them to stop using regulatory agencies to provide indirect subsidies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698999
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697297
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699699
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697419
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698593
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702329
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702861
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704855
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704841
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699357
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697249
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697817
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28731973
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700767
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697887
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701845
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703285
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700147
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700621
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697829
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697805
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699203
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28711205
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28705011
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697347
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701443
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702643
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697693
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697657
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697997
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697719
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28709279
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698981
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28707977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703543
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702889
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28731863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699527
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697729
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701003
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704921
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28709537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700275
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703669
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697727
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700813
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697517
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697689
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697873
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702609
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697949
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698919
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28706395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698025
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698361
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698125
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28731683
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701961
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697403
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28710053
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703901
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697349
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698693
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700853
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697417
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699021
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697917
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28711179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702291
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698629
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699787
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704173
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697641
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697825
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28710605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28707695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699137
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28709535
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697985
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697369
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697939
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697865
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698467
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700863
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_07_14_1918232_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697419
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697817
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697435
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702329
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703669
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697873
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28705011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699609
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702609
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697347
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701443
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697515
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704841
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702291
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698125
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700621
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699357
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699811
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698025
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699551
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699563
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698361
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698509
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697191
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697825
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697719
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697369
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697887
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697939
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697727
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700813
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697809
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697865
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28707695
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698981
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700853
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699021
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697917
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28709537
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28711179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697417
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697349
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698693
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702643
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697971
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699699
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699167
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699527
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700085
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700147
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697403
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697657
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697997
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697691
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697871
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697681
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697297
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697829
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704921
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698919
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697985
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697805
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697689
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28707977
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701003
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697289
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698629
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697693
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_07_14_1918232.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697185
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697581
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697665
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700767
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698391
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703691
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703057
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700171
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703543
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701961
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700557
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699009
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698467
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700863
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28711205
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699203
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28731973
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698999
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698593
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697949
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28698087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28710605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28697589
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703901
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699137
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28709535
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701845
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703285
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28709279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28700053
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28710053
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28706395
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704855
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702853
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702861
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28731863
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28703825
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28701291
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699953
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28699787
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28731683
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28702889
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_07_14_1918232.28704173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
